to elucidate, i think that blanking a post because js someone asking a good faith question through someone else is excessive.

Sometimes evenhanded enforcement of rules means having to disallow things that violate the letter but not the spirit of rules. In this case, the action I took was the mildest thing I could do while still avoiding the potential for future instances of "why did they get to make a post on behalf of a banned user?" If you'd like to discuss the action I took with respect to that specific comment, let's do so in a separate thread, please.

However,

Reflects that staff will no longer delete works at the request of their authors, irrespective of whether the authors are banned

I'm not a fan of this, but that's more because I have an issue with the way the deletions policy is currently being implemented in a way that disallows staff to delete articles on behalf of others altogether instead of at a case-by-case basis. (Though it does make sense for the deletions rule here being consistent with the deletions policy)

i do think, however, that the exact reason that inspired this to be brought up is a bit excessive.

edit: to elucidate, i think that blanking a post because js someone asking a good faith question through someone else is excessive.

If you've collabed with one or more people on a work, you finish it, going to post in a day, and them bam one of your co-author gets banned for something completely unrelated to you or the draft, that kind of feels you're being punished, IMO.

This is an example of a case where I would support allowing the work to be posted. (I don't think there'd be many members of staff who'd oppose it.)

Addresses the occasionally-contentious issue of collaborations with banned users without allowing for rules-lawyering

Contentious indeed. I'm pretty conflicted about this myself, but I don't think I like this solution.

In some ways this is punishing users whose only mistake was collabing with the wrong user. And I mean, you don't always collaborate with people you know super well. If you've collabed with one or more people on a work, you finish it, going to post in a day, and them bam one of your co-author gets banned for something completely unrelated to you or the draft, that kind of feels you're being punished, IMO.

And it's like you can appeal on behalf of your co-author, so there's no route to getting that on the site.

And with that, this would just encourage people to lie about their attribution. (Not that people can't already do that)

I feel like this would overall also discourage collaboration on the site. Makes it all the more risky to collaborate with someone, especially someone you don't know that well, and ditto for 'megacollab's, why risk it?

edit: 😓real bad reading comprehension on my part, please ignore

Based on recent discussions and related to our changes in deletion policy, I'm proposing a simplification of rule II.5, Content Posting by Banned Users:

Proposed rule:

5. Content Posting by Banned Users: Users currently banned from the site may not submit new content to the site in any way. This includes articles, forum posts, and all other forms of content. Site members may not post content on behalf of a banned user.
a. Banned users may request anonymization of their articles, which will be carried out in accordance with the site's license.
b. Staff will consider allowing the posting of collaborations that were in-progress at the time of a user's ban on a case-by-case basis, provided at least one co-author remains unbanned and that any banned user(s) ceased work on the collaboration at the time of their ban(s).

Advantages of the new rule:

• Removes an unnecessary distinction between AHT and Disciplinary bans
  • Includes all forms of content, not just articles, for all banned users
• Reflects that staff will no longer delete works at the request of their authors, irrespective of whether the authors are banned
  • Makes it clear that anonymization is still an option, allowing banned users to disclaim their works if they so choose
• Addresses the occasionally-contentious issue of collaborations with banned users without allowing for rules-lawyering

In accordance with the site charter, this rule will be implemented directly if consensus can be reached on this thread; if not, a vote will be held. This discussion will go on for one week.

Edit log: Tweaked bullet point order