After several months of blissful peace, I've decided to rejoin the mailing list -- at least for the English Wikipedia. I had stayed off because there's just too much volume, too many words to read. I thought I could just scan the occasional talk comment at wikipedia.org -- but when I found out that Jimbo is "swamped" and cprompt recommended delegating someone to handle all banning issues, I decided to de-lurk.

I hate banning, as I think I've made clear at several times and places on the website. I prefer peer pressure and education as motivational tools. But sometimes you have to draw the line.

What is the line? I guess it's for people who refuse to "get with the program". *Repeatedly needling other users with personal remarks (EofT vs. RK) *Nonsense that takes endless time to undo (Lir) *Utter lack of comprehension of NPOV policy (Helga, if anyone remembers back that far)

Honest differences of opinion on how articles should be organized, titling schemes, formats, etc. should never rise to the level of "bannable offenses" - that's dumb. Even NPOV disputes ought to be handled without recourse to "Ban this troll, his ideas are wacky".

What I propose to do - the service I offer to the WikiCommunity - is to analyze any on-going disputes and attempt to intervene in a way that defuses the conflict. If that fails, I may take action like demoting a sysop or even banning an account -- any such action to be reported to this mailing list, of course.

I don't expect my position to carry any more weight than any one else's, except to the extent that my judgment seems sensible and trustworthy. I will listen carefully to old hands like Mav, Eloquence, Martin, Anthére (just to name a few).

But I'm not just going to seek a consensus: at times I will take or press for immediate action, based on my own subjective assessment of what's best for Wikipedia.

Jimbo, as always, will have the final say.

Ed Poor, aka "Uncle Ed"