The logic is that if the banned user sees their post ban created articles get deleted regardless of their merit, they will go away.
It's all part of the warped Wikipediot logic that bans apply to people not accounts, and is in the fine tradition of Wikipediots claiming that content is all that matters to them, but in reality showing that behaviour, and specifically the THRILL of the HUNT, is the most important thing to them.
Like most things the Wikipedia editors believe is logical, the evidence shows them to be idiots, since unsurprisingly, in this specific case, the sock was only detected because they recreated material already deleted under G5. And their next sock will be detected the same way. Which all rather proves G5 is not the deterrent they seem to wish it were.
Some might say that shows the reason the socks are recreating these things is not because they desperately want to be part of the Wikipedia encyclopedia building business, its because they want to be part of the Wikipedia destroying business. After all, there are not many more uncomfortable introductions to Wikipedia for genuine new users who might be creating this sort of stuff for the very first time, than some ambitious wikishit aggressively asking you the question, is this your first account?
You won't hear this on Wikipediocracy, because their leader is a sell out piece of shit who makes makes it his business to help the sort of people for whom the HUNT is their idea of a good use of a human life, but to those out there who choose to follow the HTD path by trying to destroy Wikipedia in this manner, keep it up. You are doing good works.
Ideological purity has its rewards. Both Earthly and Heavenly.
This is a perfect example of the effectiveness of asymmetric warfare. It takes little effort to create hundreds of G5able articles, yet as this case shows, it takes them multiple man hours to do what they think needs to be done to deal with this supposed problem.
That both ensures that more vandalism and other bad edits will go undetected while these finite governance resources are distracted with this pointlessness, and makes sure these critical users are more cranky and less mindful of good policy when interacting with genuine new users who are causing genuine problems and could, with careful handling, been turned into productive editors.
Perhaps the best reason to do it, is because it distracts the very scarce resources of CheckUser capacity away from chasing down real threats, and in the long term, encourages them to promote people to this role who lack the necessary morals and mindfulness that their chief task is not to better facilitate the HUNT, it is the protection of Wikipedia against class action privacy lawsuits.
My favourite part of this utter nonsense? This from the deleting Admin....
I wish page taggers wouldn't attack their job with such gusto, it's easier to handle a few articles at a time rather than over a hundred. As far as CSD G5s, there is really no reason to rush their deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Surely if the logic of G5 is showing banned users that their articles get deleted, speed is desirable? Perhaps even essential.
Wikishits.
Properly stupid.
HTD.
