Banned editors are disallowed from editing. However,
still hold copyright over their own words. If you revert their good
contributions and then re-post their own words under your name, you
might be seen as illicitly taking credit for their work.
"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by
others, do not submit it."
Dude, the words have been submitted under the GFDL. Provided that DG notes
in his edit summary that he is restoring a good edit by a bad editor, the
number of legs upon which a claim might stand rapidly approaches zero.
Which way round do you want it? Do you want all edits by a bad editor to be
removed, even if they contribute good information? Or do you want even their
bad edits to be left alone?
That's a false dilemma fallacy. The way round I want it and most
everyone else is: 1. good edits left alone 2. bad edits removed 3. bad
users banned. I can't understand how it would be LESS work to rollback
all Amorrow's edits and then recreate the good ones instead of only
rolling back the bad ones. But its very nice of David Gerard taking
the time to only destroy Amorrow's bad edits. Many vandals have gotten
each and every edit they made rollbacked which means that lots of good
information was lost.