Jimbo wrote: they want to work on | wikipedia. So they come back under a new username and actually behave | completely. There's nothing we can do about that, and it isn't a problem | anyway.
The above is a textbook example of defacto-practicality - minimum wasted energy, maximum effectiveness.
What I think this also means, (Excuse me if this has all been said before) is that people shouldnt be too keen on looking for phantoms, or to call someone a Lir. If one gives themselves away, then this should be reported - in a formal way, and the ban would be automatically extended to the new identity.
People ought not be so quick to jump to calling for a ban before there is conclusive evidence. *The *very *first *mention of a case should be *conclusive, *well detailed, and practically *incontrovertible. Its like cops calling someone a rapist without enough proof to convict - theyd be sued for libel. Cops just gather evidence, only reporting it to a prosecutor when theres enough of it. Then theres a quick and speedy trial.
The case for banning is then based not on particular behaviours, rather these collected behaviours (if well documented ) can serve as evidence of that persons true identity. In more blatant cases, of course, this is all somehwat moot, but keeping to the established, orderly *due process ought to save everyone some stress, and quiet the critics of ban enforcement - who really only call for some deliberate, maturely conducted process. There are advantages to both informality and formality.
History lesson: Formal democratic ways developed from the popular need to surpass royal Law, which ultimately tended to be 'at a king's (or queens) discretion.'
IMHO -Stevert