On 3/22/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)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