On 3/29/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/29/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see why a banned user would need to edit the wiki to complain.
We
have multiple email addresses to which complaints can be addressed. This way, the banning policy is upheld and the complaint is taken into consideration. Both policies would be upheld without any conflict
occuring
that would need us to put one policy over the other.
I agree. If we have banned a user, it's presumably because they're more trouble than they're worth. There are avenues to complain if they need it.
(in case anyone is confused, my previous post was summarising consensus, not my view...)
Steve
Since it takes many voices to reach a new consensus, I'll just chip in my two cents and state i agree with Mgm - the banning policy exists to discourage intolerable troublemakers from editing onwiki. Once you are banned, any presumption of good faith is gone, because you need to be absolutely intolerable to be banned - that's why all your edits are reverted on sight, and only the decent ones restored. A similar presumption should exist with regard to comments by banned users on articles where they are the subject - but rather than convoluting policy and creating an exception to the general presumption of bad faith, why not just direct such users to our normal offwiki channels for subjects of articles?
Johnleemk