I think there is a more important issue here, and that it is not just Zero who has "blown the issue out of all proportions." The tolerance for editors who willfully damage Wikipedia is astounding; known repeat offenders are agonized over, sometimes for weeks at a time, before action is taken, and even then actions are watered down in the hopes that one day, perhaps, with the right tutoring, the editor might make some valuable edit or contribution. Even people who have been permanently banned for outrageous behaviour are allowed back in on special "parole" conditions in the hopes that enough Wikilove and supervision will turn them into productive citizens. The RfC, mediation, and Abitration processes work so slowly and intermittently that many admins describe them as broken and essentially useless (see, for example, [[User:Ambi/Thoughts_on_Dispute_Resolution]] . And yet, when an admin who has made extremely valuable contributions to the project appears to step over the line in a fairly mild way, the immediate response *from the top* is that this person should be de-sysopped. Now it's true no action has yet been taken, and given the glacial pace of the various abuse "remedies" on Wikipedia, it's likely none ever will be taken. And I understand and support the need for holding an admin to a significantly higher standard than a regular editor. However, I still see a big imbalance here between the way valuable contributors are treated and how known trolls are coddled. A number of extremely knowledgeable editors have privately (and even publicly) stated that they would no longer edit articles *in their areas of expertise* because the abuse and harassment they receive from POV warriors and ad hominem abusers is so great that it is simply not worth it for them to bother, particularly as there is no remedy for this problem - or rather, there are remedies, but Wikpedia cannot or will not use them. I admit that some of the frustration I'm expressing here is based on two solid weeks of daily personal attacks on me by 3 Wikipedia editors, and in particular my feeling that there is little, if any, point in attempting to use the various Wikipedia remedies to try to fix this situation. And perhaps it is character building for me to simply ignore the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" rather than "take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them," particularly when I think the arms in question are ineffective. Nevertheless, the underlying question is general and remains; how many of Wikipedia's most valuable resources will be forced to take lengthy or permanent self-imposed Wikibreaks as a result of this, before the issue is not only taken seriously, but actually addressed? Jay. _________________________________________________________________ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&D… Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.