On 28/03/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
Arbcom have in the past ruled that acting as a proxy for a blocked user is a serious offence.
-- geni
That's not what we're talking about at all.
Erica
Its part of it. People I think are letting it slide for comments, because there is no penalty.
But most importantly: why Brandt's free pass?
Brandt was not given a free pass and to say so is to mischaracterise what has happened. A single non-disruptive edit he made while banned (and while disclosing his identity) was not reverted for exceptional reasons.
Importantly, we behaved exceptionally to a particular action, rather than to a person (as you seem to suggest).
I'm starting to feel that I'm repeating myself. I don't think reducing this discussion to statements and questions like "why Brandt's free pass?" helps anyone or clarifies anything.