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

[Oldak Quill]

On 29/03/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 3/29/07, Denny Colt <wikidenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My question: *if* there is concensus to allow banned users to post if
> > "some
> > > people feel like letting them", why not SAY that in the banning/blocking
> > > policy? Because that seems to be... the practice.
> >
> > Quite clearly two unrelated policies are in conflict in this instance:
> > 1) WP:AUTO says that you can't edit your own article; you should post
> > complaints on the talk page instead.
> > 2) WP:BAN says that banned editors can't edit anything, except
> > possibly their own user talk page.
> >
> > No one ever thought of the situation where the subject of an article
> > is a banned editor. Now that it's happened, the conflict has to be
> > resolved by setting a priority to the above. Consensus in this thread
> > appears to be that WP:AUTO overrules WP:BAN. Problem solved. Have a
> > nice day and thank your mother for the rabbits.
> >
> > Steve
>
>
> I don't see why a banned user would need to edit the wiki to complain. We
> have multiple email addresses to which complaints can be addressed.
> This way, the banning policy is upheld and the complaint is taken into
> consideration. Both policies would be upheld without any conflict occuring
> that would need us to put one policy over the other.

Problem articles can be dealt with far more effectively if they are
dealt with on wiki by Wikipedians. Back channels tend to be populated
by administrators aware of past problems and who are a lot more wary
and unforgiving of users who have been problematic in the past.

-- 
Oldak Quill (oldakquill at gmail.com)