On 7/4/05, JAY JG <jayjg(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
From:
"Nathan J. Yoder" <njyoder(a)energon.org>
No, it's supposed to work that way. It's
doing exactly what it is
intended
to do.
No, it's supposed to protect against block evasion, how is it doing
that in this case?
Attempts to edit while you are blocked are attempts to evade the block.
That doesn't make sense. A blocked user CANNOT edit. It is like
removing the engine from the car of a driver whose license has been
suspended and saying that turning the key in the ignition is an
attempt to drive. It isn't - the car's not going anywhere. The driver
KNOWS this.
What it is, is poor interface design. The edit button shouldn't even
show up if the user is blocked.
Again, I suggest that you get blocked for a week, and see if you still
automatically hit that "edit" button before the week is out if you see
something that needs editing.
What purpose
does it serve exactly?
Protects against block evasion.
How so? A blocked user CANNOT edit. If you already have absolute
protection, then you don't need any more. Surely this is plain common
sense.
--
Peter in Canberra