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

[Erica]

> > > 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.
> > >
> > > --
> > > - Denny
> >
> > Based on what I know so far, I agree. Is there some *reason* Brandt
> > and a few other banned users are allowed to post on-wiki, and others
> > aren't? If there is an obvious reason, then out with it. Not everyone
> > knows the whole backstory to this person.
>
> This discussion isn't about allowing certain banned users to continue
> editing, it is about not reverting particular kinds of edits
> regardless of whether the user is banned or not (the argument being
> that to revert the edits doesn't benefit Wikipedia and expends energy
> unnecessarily).
>
> --
> Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)
>

Then let's make it about Brandt, since this is the example we are
using. What  does "banned" mean, if he's allowed to just keep editing?
The question is whether our banning policy really means anything.

I agree that it would be pointless to actually seek out edits by
banned users, but again, let's use the Brandt example: He is obviously
a disruptive user. Why don't we follow our own policy, revert his
comments, and move on? Why are some people reverting him back? -- This
is the question we are trying to answer.

Erica