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