[WikiEN-l] Daniel Brandt & other banned users posting still

[Oldak Quill]

On 28/03/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill <oldakquill at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Isn't this list for such discussions? I was under the impression that
> > you were asking for a clarification or specification of policy?
>
>
> 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
> > should encourage the use of these), but if the user uses the on-wiki
> > method, I don't see why we should ignore their suggestions for the
> > sake of maintaining policy.
> >
> > Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>
>
>
> 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.

Would this be problematic? I'm not suggesting we overlook the
behaviour of all banned users, but I have never seen why exceptional
edits (such as those which are of benefit to Wikipedia, are about the
individual them self, &c.) can't be pragmatically accepted (not
explicitly accepted, but let go). Doing so wouldn't incentivise
editing while being banned since the vast majority of edits are still
against our policy.

I posted a couple of weeks ago about an admin deleting a useful
redirect because it had been created by a user while they were banned.
Surely, to expend our energy deleting and recreating such redirects is
allowing the banned user to continue to disrupt the project?

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)