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(a)gmail.com)