Abe (user:172) has asked me to inform the mailing list that I have "retracted" my request to ban him. I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify a few points.

When I asked, "Can we ban 172 and VV?", I was using a rhetorical device. What I sought was merely that ALL parties concerned, would be in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Be cooperative, or be elsewhere: nothing more, nothing less.

I've broken a lot of log jams at Wikipedia, and when I set out to do something here I've always succeeded. If it's an article, I've always been able to find a way to get all the contributors to agree on both the process and the product. If it's a 'troublesome user', it's a bit more involved.

The best outcome is that the user sees the light and chooses _voluntarily_ to support Wikipedia policy: chiefly, no insults and no reversion wars. Other alternatives include getting an "official warning" or being blocked (temporarily) or banned (indefinitely). The last alternative is always farthest from my mind, because it's the worst for all involved.

But some people think that calling someone to account comprises a personal affront: "How dare you tell me to follow the rules!" Well, somebody has to do it. Better me than Jimbo, because most people who tangle with Jimbo wind up getting exiled. I'm much more patient and easy to deal with.

But Abe handled the "shape up or ship out" confrontation rather well. It's a pity that the process was so disturbing to him, but I don't feel I have anything to apologize for. My job (as I see it) is to ensure that articles are accurate and unbiased; my method is to encourage users to contribute with courtesy.

It's not dis-courteous to insist that another user conform to Wikipedia policy. Contrariwise, it's my duty.

Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed Bureaucrat