On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote: OTRS, oversight, mail admins, mail arbcom. Why let them post on-wiki? If that is desired, change the policy to say-so. - Denny

On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote: I was and am. I was just re-reverted for removing the Brandt comments on his talk page, and RV'd it back out again. I don't want to get into an edit war on this, but I don't understand why out-of-policy permission is granted to banned users to freely post under their own name. You are right to say that there are other mechanisms (and that we We don't have to *ignore* it, but we shouldn't interact/endorse them, or support them by proxy. Isn't that a policy violation to post on behalf of a banned user? Isn't reposting a banned users contribution... the same thing? Banned people can address whatever they want via OTRS, oversight, etc. I am saying that if we are going to turn a blind eye to this for the loudest people, we need to do it for all banned people, and put it in the policy as that is what practice is. If that is NOT accepted, that we don't let banned people post with a nudge and wink, lets say so. -- - Denny

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&limit=500&… So multiple people have RV'd back in his comments. Is this appropriate? - Denny

On 3/28/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: So the concensus was just one banned person...? I don't know who that is, unfortunately. -- - Denny

On 3/30/07, Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com> wrote: He was banned after exhausting the communities patience, and indefinitely blocked by User:Gwernol on September 7, 2006. He has since created over 100 sockpuppets. He used them to edit war incessantly at [[Truth theory]], an article filled with his original research, until the article was permanently deleted. Since then he's been edit-warring at [[Charles Peirce]], another article he has filled with his original research. I believe he's edited the latter article with over a dozen sockpuppets. Jay. Jay.

On 3/30/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote: Ah - thanks for the correction! He didn't end up before the arbcom, and I don't keep up on the drama if it doesn't get there. -Matt

On 28/03/07, Erica <fangaili(a)gmail.com> wrote: This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy unnecessarily). -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

On 28/03/07, Erica <fangaili(a)gmail.com> wrote: If we are to make this discussion explicitly about Brandt, then we need to clarify what has happened. To say that he is "allowed to keep editing" is a mischaracterisation of what has occured: he posted some concerns about his article on the talk page. He did not hide behind a sock puppet to do so (he fully disclosed that he was Brandt). His comments didn't seem disruptive and may well be valid and should be investigated. There seem to be those who believe that banning should be absolute and those who pragmatically believe that exceptional edits may be accepted if they benefit the project. The question isn't at all "whether our banning policy really means anything". -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

On 3/28/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny(a)gmail.com> wrote: Arbcom have in the past ruled that acting as a proxy for a blocked user is a serious offence. -- geni

On 3/28/07, Erica <fangaili(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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? -- - Denny

On 28/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny(a)gmail.com> wrote: This has already been answered several times so far, but I'll repeat the basic points: Brandt is not being given a 'free pass' to edit, he is being allowed to make useful comments about concerns he has about his own article. I am certain that if he were to make any abusive edits to [[Talk: Daniel Brandt]], they would be reverted. However, reverting his edits to the _talk page_ of the article about *himself* when he's merely expressing concerns about an article that could affect his PERSONAL LIFE directly is simply unfair and isn't going to help anybody. He's not being given 'special treatment'; I would expect any other banned users with articles about themselves to be treat the same.

On 28/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny(a)gmail.com> wrote: Okay: [[Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Allowing_banned_users_to_make_comments_on_talk_pages_of_articles_about_themselves]]

On 3/29/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny(a)gmail.com> wrote: Let us not throw away common sense and goodwill in favour of nailing down every last jot and tittle of behaviour in wikilaw. Banning isn't something that is rigidly enforcable, so there is little point in pretending that it is. If a banned user is careful and non-contentious, then they can be a useful contributor without attracting the attention of the wikiconstables. I find it ridiculous that a person may make an edit under one username and have it accepted gratefully, and yet that very same edit under another username will be reverted and reviled. Just what is the point of "nuking" reasonable contributions? If they make for a better encyclopaedia, or illuminate the discussion, then leave 'em be, I say. Otherwise, with a "nuke on sight" policy, we are merely adding fuel to the fire of criticism that Wikipedia is not so much an encyclopaedia as a bunch of smalldicks throwing their weight around. -- Peter in Canberra

On 28/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny(a)gmail.com> wrote: Do you not think that such an absolute policy drives people to using sock puppets? I don't think this is something we want to encourage. If someone has concerns about an article on them, they should be able to express them on wiki in a non-disruptive fashion. I am not suggesting we give out free passes (this discussion isn't about removing his block), I am suggesting we be pragmatic and make exceptions when those exceptions are to the project's benefit. -- Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)

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

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:33:48 +0800, "John Lee" <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote: Precisely. The subject in this case already has access to the back-channels, and knows how to use them. He knows full well that if he emails certain individuals with factual errors, they will be attended to. Of course, this is mainly about Brandt. We cannot subject ordinary editors to the risk of being sucked into his cesspit. The "revert, block, ignore" model exists in part to protect the well-meaning from being sucked into long-running disputes - as we know from past experience, any comment which is even slightly critical of Brandt will result in him publishing your username and whatever personal details he can glean (and he is pretty resourceful, let's not forget) on his Hivemind pages. That is a risk to which we should not subject unwitting editors. That is why he is banned. Removing his comments is not censorship, it's protection from involvement in a particularly nasty dispute. I am not without sympathy, he was the subject of attacks perpetrated abusively through Wikipedia, but his inability to separate the project and those who (ab)use the project for their own ends has been a very large part of his problem. In particular, it takes a very high degree of unpleasantness to overwhelm Jimbo's natural tendency to be humane in respect of biographies. Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

Gregory Kohs (of MyWikiBiz) emailed me to tell about his attempts to get an article fixed. I can speak from my own experience (and his) that OTRS can easily get clogged which means posts to that list take a long time to be responded to. So that makes me think. What other email addresses can banned people write to in order to get something fixed without posting to the wiki? Mgm On 3/29/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill(a)gmail.com> wrote: