A few contributors have taken me to task, for daring to suggest that
enforcing the rules of Wikipedia is a duty -- rather than something to
be apologized for.
I do not believe in "moral equivalence". When people agree to follow
rules, and one of them breaks the rule, another of them has the RIGHT to
point out the violation. At this point, the two parties are no longer on
the same standing. The violator takes the low road, and the
pointer-outer takes the moral high road.
Normally, the offender would then apologize, make amends, etc. Others,
including the pointer-outer would then forgive him.
Some people disagree with this norm. Or they think that social graces
should apply to all situations, regardless of import. "Sorry, that's my
seat." (apology given to offender!)
How about if someone wearing a tee-shirt with a large rooster on it
walks down your street breaking car windows with a baseball bat. Would
you feel a need to apologize to him, before calling the police? (Or
getting together with a couple of neighbors and tackling him?)
Problems with Wik dragged on because we don't have clear moral ideas,
that all subscribe to. The problem with 172 _was_ resolved (without
resorting to the Arbitration Committee), because we were all able to
discuss it on the mailing list. But Abe maintains the posture of having
taken offense, rather than realizing he offended, so the resolution
remains incomplete.
Imagine getting a phone call from the mother of the kid who was breaking
car windows, demanding an apology: "How dare you tackle (or call the
police on) him?" Would you say, "Sorry, I admit it was wrong for me to
try to stop him from destroying things. I promise not to do it again."?
That's ridiculous.
Ed Poor