Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies affecting deletion outcome

The current banning policy is obviously a much needed policy, but it has been very strict unlike Simple English Wikipedia which seems to do fine with a few articles that are being created by banned users. This also seems to have a unneeded effect on deletion discussions.

Background
While this does not usually seem to affect blocked users in the same circumstance, deletion requests by banned users such as this one that state real reasons are kept. I know that users like Grawp and Willy on Wheels have made Wikipedia enforce the banning policy much more hardly than other projects, but the article in which the said banned user requested for deletion under real reasons that policy does not allow for a article to have in order to exist gets kept because the said person is a banned user, what is the big deal? The user isn't hurting anything, and it obviously is not vandalism to a scale compared by major serial vandals, so why do we have to be so tabbo? Could we at least become less strict?

Without undue analysis of what went on, the questions at this RFC are
 * 1) Could we become less strict and follow suit like Simple and the other projects?
 * 2) Is there really any harm in allowing discussions made by banned users as long as the discussion is a valid matter?.

Discussion
Banned users are not allowed to edit articles. If detected, reversion may be done by any editor. If reinstated, the new editor takes full responsiblity for the action.

I see no reason the same shouldn't apply to deletion nominations. Deletion of comments may be done in the same manner as edits to articles or talk pages, but if the banned user is the nominator, it should not be done unless the reinstating editor agrees completely with the nomination. Otherwise, the only remedy is to close the deletion discussion and for any editor who wishes to have a deletion discussion to start a new one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Likelihood that, who started this RfC, is a banned user? Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * not proven — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The policy should remain strict. Banned users and sockpuppets thereof have demonstrated that their edits are not worth thinking about, beyond the necessary evil of figuring out that a certain IP address or new user is indeed a sockpuppet. Once that is established, no one should be expected to expend the mental effort of thinking about the content of the edits, just the mechanics of deleting them. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)