Hello... this is my first post to the actual list (ever). I usually just
focus on building a few articles, and spend too much time on Recent
Changes/RC patrol. However... I got inadvertantly pulled into a couple of
policy related disputes and wanted to put this forward. Two
questions/propositions, that I posted to the Banning policy today at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Reverting_banned…
I wanted to post it here too to get some more visibility since that page
isn't too active at all...
* 1. Reverting banned users: may vs will
The banning policy says, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be
reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits
themselves". As the policy gives no leeway for them to post on Wikipedia
pages anyway, shouldn't this language not contridict the rest of it and say
"will be reverted" instead? Why indulge trolls and troublemakers?
* 2. Engaging editors known to be banned - policy violation
I think that, given that some admins and users won't/can't enforce this
policy even handedly, and give or don't give special treatment to users like
Barbara Schwartz and Daniel Brandt, who are both indefinitely banned... that
the banning policy should be updated to reflect that such discourse be in
and of itself a policy violation. I.e., if you see posts that are identified
as by a banned/blocked user, the proper action is to remove it (as defined
in policy). Anything else is facilitating a banned user to cicumvent their
ban. Posts to WP:RFAR would be exempt, so that they can appeal their blocks.
Or they can email the unblock mail list. Or mail Oversight. Thoughts? We
can't force people to block/ban/redact banned users... but if the policy
states that engaging/interacting with them is an act of disruption, and
bannable if ongoing... could help to close these personal loopholes that
some allow banned users...
- Denny