On 14 Nov 2007 at 13:57:55 +0000, "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 14/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Up to a point. If the editor has made a good point we may wish to discuss it even though the user is banned. And I've seen (I forget with whom, so don't ask me for the dif) at least one case where the insistence on removing banned edits led to a ridiculous result- the sock had fixed a spelling error in an article and then people reverted it and insisted that it stay reverted. I have trouble seeing what that accomplishes.
The error is in insisting it stay reverted, i.e. with the people in question.
But that's an error that's highly encouraged by the current prevailing mindset regarding banned users, where ensuring that "banned is banned" and no appearance of a loophole must ever be given takes precedence over the quality of the encyclopedia.
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 20:24:10 -0500, "Daniel R. Tobias" dan@tobias.name wrote:
But that's an error that's highly encouraged by the current prevailing mindset regarding banned users, where ensuring that "banned is banned" and no appearance of a loophole must ever be given takes precedence over the quality of the encyclopedia.
That is policy and has been for a long time.
How do you suggest we implement the policy of being "a little bit banned" without leaving the doors wide open for rampant abuse?
Guy (JzG)