On 3/28/07, Denny Colt wikidenny@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/28/07, Oldak Quill oldakquill@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@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.
I would note that this is especially important in this case, when Daniel Brandt was banned partially for being disruptive about his own page.
Sincerely, Silas Snider