[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, Erica <fangaili at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Arbcom have in the past ruled that acting as a proxy for a blocked
> > > user is a serious offence.
> > >
> > > --
> > > geni
> > >
> >
> > That's not what we're talking about at all.
> >
> > Erica
>
>
> Its part of it.  People I think are  letting it slide for comments, because
> there is no penalty.
>
> But most importantly: why Brandt's free pass?

Brandt was not given a free pass and to say so is to mischaracterise
what has happened. A single non-disruptive edit he made while banned
(and while disclosing his identity) was not reverted for exceptional
reasons.

Importantly, we behaved exceptionally to a particular action, rather
than to a person (as you seem to suggest).

I'm starting to feel that I'm repeating myself. I don't think reducing
this discussion to statements and questions like "why Brandt's free
pass?" helps anyone or clarifies anything.

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)