On 14/03/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If it's an
occasional mistake, cut some slack (check history to see if
he was doing cleanup) . If it wasn't, then it's
process-for-the-process-sake-wonkery-wonkery-willy-wonka kinda guy and
should be sent to room 101
I think this is an example of where process should be followed even
when it seems pointless. If we don't follow it then the banning policy
is actually "Banned users are not allowed to make useless edits.",
rather than "Banned users are not allowed to edit." The former is not
a useful policy (it basically makes bans a form of probation).
All edits by banned users should be deleted, if they're useful, they
can be remade by someone else who can take responsibility for them.
Maybe I'm too hungry for efficiency but this kind of redundant
repetition of work strikes me as pointless. What's more, deleting
another's edits and resubmitting them as your own seems plagiaristic -
credit where credit's not due.
--
Oldak Quill (oldakquill(a)gmail.com)