This thread begins with a selection of on-topic posts from the
original thread on this issue.
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Sat 17th November 2007, 12:54am)

What's Wrong With This Picture?You guessed it — JustZapitGuy is in it.
QUOTE(Guy Chapman @ 16 Nov 2007 UTC 09:57)
As David Gerard has previously said, checking the edits and making them again in your own name is the way to do that. Yes, tedious and to an outside view somewhat silly, but when we ban people *we ban them*, if we think they should be allowed to come along and edit some then *we should not ban them*.
You need to remember that the source of this problem is not our behaviour, it's theirs. They are the ones evading a ban. They are the ones deliberately gaming the system and disrupting Wikipedia to make their point. Sockpuppets of banned users correcting typos as a way of building up an edit history is *not actually a good thing* because the aim is to do some damage that is massively greater than the benefit of the trivial typo fixing.
Policy on banned users says that we should revert all edits made by banned users after banning. And we should, even if (as with Arch Coal) we then go and rewrite a whole article from scratch, from sources. I do not subscribe to the idea of being "a little bit banned".
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman, Re: Featured Editors, 16 Nov 2007 UTC 09:57Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 28th November 2007, 4:35pm