So, they're following a heuristic approach -- ban (read "hinder") as best they can the worst (egregious) idiots where identifiable, and rely on the rest of their established processes to keep up quality elsewhere. We used to call it ABC analysis -- deal with the highest priorities first, and keep after the others as you can.

You seem to have issues with this. I'm curious as to what recommendation you would make that you think would be likely to achieve better results? And if you have one or more such recommendations, what is your definition of "better results" in this case?

Well, I'm no expert, I'm just here to eat the cheese dip and make fun of people. But it seems to me the Wikipedians may finally have to give up some cherished notions, first among them being the small fiercely guarded priesthood that make the rules for everyone else. The council of Wiki elders may need to democratize itself or, at the very least, let in some outsiders -- maybe even some (gasp) experts.

Another thing that probably has to go is the concept of anonymous posting. Yes, I can hear the screaming and gnashing of teeth already. Establish a reputation system like eBay's (only better) that ranks each contributor by the quality of their entries. Give entries from people with acknowledged expertise more weight than, say, that obnoxious 12-year-old down the block, as is trying to do. Do what the has been trying to do, and fact check the entries with impartial sources -- at least the important or controversial ones. (Citizendium and Veropedia were both started by original Wiki-heads who grew unhappy with how the Wiki was being run and branched out to make a better one, fyi.)

In other words, it's time for Wikipedia to grow up.