Quoting Matthew Brown <morven(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Nov 27, 2007 8:59 AM,
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Now, there are a variety of other techniques that
can be used to find banned
users and taken together with those they are often effective. However, we
shouldn't simply use evidence prior experience with Wikipedia as a
good reason
to assume someone is a banned returning user.
Indeed. The correct behavior is probably to email the user privately
about your concerns and give them a chance to address them. If that
doesn't work, getting a mutually trusted third party to act as an
intermediary might be a good idea.
-Matt
No. While that on occasion make sense, very often additional evidence is by
itself sufficient. For example, some users have certain grammatical quirks and
spelling issues. For example I frequently write "payed" when the word is in
fact "paid". Without going into too much detail (not wanting to give banned
users too much info here) such signs when used with other evidence can be very
definitive. In such cases a sanity check from another admin might be a good
thing, but very often there's no need to email the user.