Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Abe, I don't think I abused any powers whatsoever.
Nonetheless, if there
is any specific action or statement of mine you object to, I am willing
in good faith to take it back.
I would like to settle this issue courteously and reasonably. I believe
you are a man of good motives and high intellectual ability.
As far as I know, despite my initial query about whether "we" can ban
you and VerilyVerily, you have NOT been banned. I can't say I've read
every post word for word, but I seem to recall Fred Bauder of the
Arbitration Committee affirming that you remain a contributor in good
standing. (I don't recall anyone specifically supporting a ban on your
user:172 account, but Erik or someone recommended blocking you from a
specific article -- perhaps "Augusto Pinochet" which seems to be at the
focus of this dispute.)
I is not true that I "used admin powers to ram my way through", but if
you or anyone else thinks so, then I'll simply stop editing for a while.
That is, until this issue is resolved.
Think of this as placing myself under house arrest, if you wish.
I think that Ed has been around long enough to know that a title like
"Should we ban Xxxx" is bound to raise the fever level of discussion.
This is NOT an abuse of sysop powers, because anybody can create such a
title without being a sysop.
Any such title immediately prejudices the situation against the person
named, although VV received considerably less discussion than 172.
Perhaps that's just because more of us have had encounters with 172.
The dramatic flair that you suggest is not required from you. I would
expect that a sysop should participate in toning down a debate. Using
more neutral email subject headings would be a positive development. A
title like a simple "172 vs. VV" is far more neutral than "Shall we ban
172 and VV".
Perhaps all of us who want to respond to such an item on the list should
remove the word "ban" from the title of the response.
Ec