I've been around for years and since I usually have high standards on what to do and do not post I did read many more posts than writing them. I know how things go and how they are run. And as you pointed out, Meta is for discussing how the site is used. That means that people will refer and link to it when they want to make a point. And that means that you are, practically speaking, trying to establish a community policy. If you think that policies on banning can not be harsh enough and that words redirected to new users who don't know policy yet can't be harsh enough, I strongly disagree.

Do I understand the "rules" pointed out by you correctly? You mean to say that people who make an edit with their own name attached to it, put words in someone else's mouth, and also that there are objective, inarguable rules or laws that cause editors to be suspended or even blocked for using an existing feature? Or is it just that you do not think the feature is meant to be used this way (because you get it)? I am a fan of cleaning up one's own backyard first and it would be quite helpful if you added links to back up your rules. - And "can't be harsh enough" is always already too harsh IMO.