On 14 Nov 2007 at 13:57:55 +0000, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 14/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Up to a point. If the editor has made a good
point we may wish to discuss it
even though the user is banned. And I've seen (I forget with whom, so
don't ask
me for the dif) at least one case where the insistence on removing
banned edits
led to a ridiculous result- the sock had fixed a spelling error in an article
and then people reverted it and insisted that it stay reverted. I have trouble
seeing what that accomplishes.
The error is in insisting it stay reverted, i.e. with the people in question.
But that's an error that's highly encouraged by the current
prevailing mindset regarding banned users, where ensuring that
"banned is banned" and no appearance of a loophole must ever be given
takes precedence over the quality of the encyclopedia.
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: