BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
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.
This is a favourite tactic of some of the more obnoxious trolls that can be found at Wikipedia Review - do some vandalism with some good edits thrown in, then sit back and laugh as all are reverted.