No, I say delete him right away.

Utterly. He's totally validating his banning. And we let him have his say as mmmieskie.

If someone has issues with me and they post it in something I don't read, then it's like talking about me behind my back and yet not.

Yeah... one time I changed all my subscriptions and searched for my name in the threads I don't read, just out of paranoia. This here isn't gossipy talk, however, it's discipline talk. I felt kind of bad that we were talking about Deena in here and then she read it, but it was a fair discussion. Complaining in Natter about people who post here might be a bad precedent for gossip, however.

I dislike to an incredible degree the idea of deactivating someone before we've heard one peep from him/her/it. I'm in favor of waiting for them to show wolf snout under sheep's clothing, but let's not shoot the sheep before we've seen the fangs.

OK so they get one post, and if it's obvious from that one post they're the old mieskie, then we can delete?

connie - I expect that ita's email will be worded in such a way that if it's not the same guy, he can just select another, less confusing, username.

Gah. I've changed my mind. Let /mieskie post. Let's see how it turns out, and we'll inactivate as content dictates.

Someone should tell him outright that we see him trying to do it and we want him to stop.

If this is the same individual, I'm sure that being seen/noticed is very much a part of the intent.

Someone watch the Firefly thread then, I guess?

I believe in everyone getting one free shot, though supervision of that shot will depend on the potential danger of that shot. What can I say, I'm a real-world redemptionista.

Thanks Jon B! and sorry about that everybody!

Connie, there's no chance this is a coincidence, and mieskie doesn't deserve a second chance. We aren't pre-emptively deactivating him, we're just enforcing our decision to suspend.

I'm starting to worry about his continuing attempts to come bother us. Also, it's pissing me off.