[WikiEN-l] Reverting banned users, and users who engage banned users

[Skyring]

On 3/23/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/22/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The merits aside, again... it's specifically for if we know its them
> > (they
> > > announce it is them) or fits the  standard form for a puppet/sock, why
> > > shouldn't they be nuked on sight?
> >
> > They should be, to discourage banned editors from violating their
> > bans. It takes some pretty bad behavior to warrant a banning on
> > Wikipedia, and a great deal of effort to get a ban.
>
> Exactly, thats why I posted this... it seemed like some editors were/are
> determined to give Brandt and Scwartz free passes to post, even as Doc
> Glasgow posted, threatened to block anyone who removed comments from
> Brandt
> at one point... I also had people each time I redacted out Brandt's posts
> on
> the article talk page put in links BACK to his redacted comments.
>
> Why do/should Brandt & Schwartz get free passes?


I've seen some people get really anal over this, and indeed I've seen some
editors go to a lot of effort to revert good edits or article creations,
even going so far as to label them "vandalism in progress", so long as they
were by a banned editor they didn't like.

This sort of wikinazi behaviour does nothing to enhance our image; it's
fodder for yet another round of articles poking fun at the community, and
confirmation that Wikipedia is a place where silly power games are
encouraged.

-- 
Peter in Canberra