Erik Moeller wrote:

No on the second point. We have already determined that Michael's edits are not worth the trouble. Will you go to the search engines and check every single date in a discography, every little factoid about a band's history? If you're not willing to do this work, you should not talk about "bad edits". If you are, make a promise now, and I will hold you to it. For every Michael edit and every claim.

I wholeheartedly agree and would like to add that undoing such a revert or undeleting a page is further enabling the vandal or banned user to subvert the ban and continue to do the things that got them banned in the first place. That makes the ban useless and the way I see it, it is more than a tacit act indicating that whatever the banned user did was OK.

So since I was the recipient of a death threat by a now banned user then pardon me if I may be a bit perplexed and hurt when that user's post-ban edits and pages are restored. I know the intent of the person restoring the edits are to save what they see as useful content but please consider the big picture and understand that by restoring such an edit you nullify the ban and encourage the banned user to stick around without having to bother with reforming their ways.

I know our goal is to build an encyclopedia but the wrong way to do this is to keep around sloppy, rude and destructive workers who either do not share our goal of creating a respected, accurate and free encyclopedia or who have other agendas alltogether.

I would also like to know why if each edit by a banned user is supposed to be viewed on its own merits then how the hell is this different than any other edit?

Nobody is compelled to work on enforcing a ban, but please do not work against those that do. However, preventing innocent people from getting caught in the crossfire is another matter entirely and /is/ a good thing to avoid and /is/ something that needs to be further discussed. I also find Martin's ideas for SoftBans to be intriguing as a possible way to deal with troublesome users before a HardBan is needed.

Jimbo said it best: "If we don't revert every change made by a banned user, then we implicit encourage them to keep coming back and pulling their stunts over and over."

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)