RK wrote in part:
I again ask Wikipedia sysops to accept responsibility
for
their position; please stop allowing vandals to ride
rougshod over Wikipedia community consensus by deleting
articles. Continued silence effectively implies consent,
which is unfortunate.
First, Clutch is not a vandal -- trolling, violating consensus,
and even lying about consensus are not acts of vandalism.
(I leave it unjudged whether or not he is doing these things;
that's not the point.) Similarly, you are not a vandal.
Edit articles to improve them, however ill done, is not vandalism.
So please, neither of you label your edits "VANDALISM IN PROGRESS".
As for banning versus tacit consent, we are slow to ban on Wikipedia
(except in cases of persistent vandalism, which is not what we have here).
Given that, a failure to ban so far does not in fact indicate agreement.
Also, only Jimmy Wales has the authority to ban Clutch
(just as it was he that had to ban Lir and Helga, also nonvandals),
and he will only do this (I assume) after asking Clutch to talk to him.
Your position, then, if you want Clutch to be banned (or cured)
is to complain to Jimmy (which you're doing by mailing the list).
But don't expect "Wikipedia sysops" to exceed our authority.
In fact, I join your call for Jimmy to look at the situation with Clutch.
In the meantime, see the recent posts by Ed Poor and Axel Boldt
(either here or on <wikipedia-l>) about how well it works
to go away for a few days and then come back to fix an article
(when otherwise in the midst of an edit war).
-- Toby