Tim-
"Enforcer" appears to be Bird, not 142.
Which would make him a banned user and justify instant re-banning. If he wants to engage in reasonable dialogue, that has always been possible. Wikipedia is not, however, a forum for trolls to publish their conspiracy theories or outright libel.
As your example [[Bomis]] shows, I am hardly a subservient sycophant, as is not a single Wikipedian I know. In fact Wikipedia is the most self- critical online project I have ever been part of, sometimes to the point of temporary paralysis. Critical dialogue on all aspects of our community is not simply tolerated, it is encouraged.
This openness has led some trolls to try to disrupt our community systematically, feeling emboldened by the occasional cry of censorship that echoes back from the larger community. These trolls are the people who would like to see Wikipedia fail, most of them because we don't (and cannot) allow them to publish their convulsive ravings as gospel, or because they want the attention that their mother or their girlfriend apparently didn't give them.
Can you reform someone whose goal is to destroy the very thing you are creating? Should you even try? I remain ambivalent on this question as I can't think of a single success story in that department. Even Lir, whom we accepted back into our community in spite of his terrible track record and lack of a public apology, left weeks ago, insulting the entire community one last time and calling several individuals "fuckwits" and "assholes" on their talk pages before his departure. It says a lot about our pain tolerance that he was not instantly banned for that, and that some users in fact asked him to come back. I for one am happy if he keeps doing whatever he's doing right now.
Regards,
Erik