[WikiEN-l] Tracking banned user Andrew Morrow

[BJörn Lindqvist]

> > Banned editors are disallowed from editing.  However, banned editors
> > 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.

--
mvh Björn