On 3/29/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/29/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)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