Wikipedia talk:Even a stopped clock is right twice a day

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Comments moved from the essay page

The comments below were moved from the essay page to this talk page by DesertPipeline (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC) [reply]

So a block isn't a block, and a ban isn't a ban, they're just whatever the blocked or banned contributor feels like abiding by? Cabayi (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, blocks and bans exist for a reason, and of course action should be taken against editors in violation of their block/ban. I just think that nuking all their contributions for no other reason than the fact they were made in violation of a block/ban, is counterproductive. The good edits they make are good edits regardless of their author. It comes off as a bit of a WP:BATHWATER thing. PrussianOwl (talk) 11:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:DENY thing. Cabayi (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that only be if we kept their disruptive changes? PrussianOwl (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop using acronyms And actually refer to your reasons 75.117.226.44 (talk) 02:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]