User talk:Marokwitz/Archives/2013/July

Sending the wrong signal
By re-implementing edits by sockpuppets of blocked or topic banned editors I think you are sending the wrong signal. These editors are not allowed to make any edits at all in the topic area. If editors re-implement edits by sockpuppets it interferes with the enforcement of topic bans/blocks. It facilitates and enables people who compulsively violate the rules and lie without hesitation. Many of the edits by editors who end up getting themselves blocked or topic banned are constructive and a significant proportion of their edits as sockpuppets are often constructive, but nevertheless, they are not allowed to be here. I understand the dilemma but there is little point issuing topic bans or blocking editors if they can't be enforced. Helping to enforce the rules and sending a clear signal that banned/blocked editors can't be here is necessary and constructive, whereas helping sockpuppets to flout the rules and criticizing those who try to enforce the rules is not constructive in my view. The content of articles evolve over time, individual edits aren't very important, but I think being able to enforce topic bans and blocks is essential in the ARBPIA topic area.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 10:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand your point. Still I am not aware of any rule mandating that constructive edits by banned editors must be reverted. This may be technically allowed, but looks bad and damages our collective project. It is quite trivial for those banned editors to circumvent the block and make constructive edits, by logging in anonymously, so in my view this is a very weak kind of "punishment" . In any case, thank you for your note. Marokwitz (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In the future, dont call somebody's edits unacceptable and borders on vandalism when explicitly allowed by policy. Thank you and good bye.  nableezy  - 13:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)