Someone's feeling bold, And actually opening a discussion on CSD#G5 Options

[that one guy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vil...P:G5_Discussion

How long before this gets swarmed by people opposing a change like the WP:V one?

[Ottava]

The G5 people have a logical point - if the community bans someone, why would we allow them any ability to continue furthering themselves. By allowing their edits to continue without anyone verifying them, or taking the responsibility upon themselves, what you are effectively saying is "oh, go ahead and sock as much as you want."

This is the equivalent of kicking a guy out of a football team for unnecessary roughness but allowing his "brother" who is the same guy with only a drawn on mustache to play.

If you are going to have any kind of ban, then you really need something like this. Otherwise, the ban becomes useless. Now, you can just toss out the bans, but yeah. It is all about consistency. G5 is consistent.

[thekohser]

...what you are effectively saying is "oh, go ahead and sock as much as you want."

Yes, in practice, that is exactly what Wikipedia says to every user, banned or unbanned. Wikipedia's cabal essentially says, "We are so gullible in believing that people will willingly identify themselves by one account, so that we may abuse them and subject them to contradictory and unenforceable rules, we refuse to establish any system of public identification of editors, so go ahead and sock as much as you want."

Raul654 has jumped on it now

Have you ever gotten a good look at the real Raul654? He's not capable of jumping on anything.

[Peter Damian]

...what you are effectively saying is "oh, go ahead and sock as much as you want."

Yes, in practice, that is exactly what Wikipedia says to every user, banned or unbanned. Wikipedia's cabal essentially says, "We are so gullible in believing that people will willingly identify themselves by one account, so that we may abuse them and subject them to contradictory and unenforceable rules, we refuse to establish any system of public identification of editors, so go ahead and sock as much as you want."

Raul654 has jumped on it now

Have you ever gotten a good look at the real Raul654? He's not capable of jumping on anything.

Yes absolutely. It is incredibly easy to evade a ban, as long as you don't publicly identify with the banned editor. So what they are trying to prevent is not good editing by banned editors, but rather the acknowledgment that something is deeply deeply and badly wrong when those capable of contributing good content have been banned at all.

And all that stuff on the page about people starting fights in bars is just ridiculous. They are avoiding any suggestion that some bans are just drive-by shootings, the result of someone getting on the wrong side of some administrators, or some little bullying gang of them.

Any edit they make, regardless of it's merit, is a manifest act of bad faith.Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Admin who can't spell weighs in.

One has to cause substantial problems in order to earn a community ban.

Citation needed.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: