It is very unfortunate when a talented contributor leaves the project in disgust, and other people consider doing the same. In this case, 172 was bullied off by people who have yet to respond to the content of his arguments beyond some rhetorical ranting about things which are barely relevant to the content at hand. It was done with personal attacks, using terms such as Stalinist, revisionist, totalitarian, etc. It was also done (sorry, Ed, but I have to point this out) by having the title "Can we ban 172 now" appear countless times as an email header. He reads the list. He has feelings. That very title, to someone who has contributed such high quality work to Wikipedia, is insulting and crass.

 

If the problem with 172 was that he was rude, I can point to many more examples of rudeness by the people who are most vociferous in condemning him. It is unfortunate that there is no equal number of emails condemning their behavior.

 

If the problem was content, then answer his arguments on a point by point basis. If it is his political positioning, then point to where rather than engaging in the same political positioning. Very often, the attacks we make on the foibles of others are a projection of our own foibles.

 

If the problems are reverts, then respond to VV's reverts with equal vehemence, instead of implying that VV's reverts were justified because he is on the same political bandwagon as you.

 

If the problem is none of these, then 172 deserves an apology.

 

To everyone, I suggest that maybe the time has come to start considering quality over quantity and content over form. If we don't, it seems to me that we will end up with neither.

 

Danny