[WikiEN-l] Reverting banned users, and users who engage banned users

[Denny Colt]

On 3/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Editors are not forced to revert changes by banned users and why would you
> do so on all their edits anyway?
> If a change is good for the encyclopedia, you could revert without looking
> at its merit, but it would probably be reinsterted by someone else later
> on.
> Not reverting good edits causes less work and in the end improves the
> project.


Well... if they post anonymously, or on a pseuodnym, sure. But if a John
Smith or Jane Doe are banned by name, and they post anything and I.D.
themselves by name... and we allow the posts to stand... what was the point
again to having banned them?


The "can be reverted regardless of the merits"-bit was, I think, included so
> edits by banned users can easily be reverted without the editor doing so
> being required to research all the edits. If they know something to be
> true
> and reference-able, they don't have to remove it. If they don't know, they
> won't be sanctioned for removing it.
>
> Mgm


The merits aside, again... it's specifically for if we know its them (they
announce it is them) or fits the  standard form for a puppet/sock, why
shouldn't they be nuked on sight? If not... why have a banning policy at
all?

-- 
- Denny