A few contributors have taken me to task, for daring to suggest that enforcing the rules of Wikipedia is a duty -- rather than something to be apologized for. I do not believe in "moral equivalence". When people agree to follow rules, and one of them breaks the rule, another of them has the RIGHT to point out the violation. At this point, the two parties are no longer on the same standing. The violator takes the low road, and the pointer-outer takes the moral high road. Normally, the offender would then apologize, make amends, etc. Others, including the pointer-outer would then forgive him. Some people disagree with this norm. Or they think that social graces should apply to all situations, regardless of import. "Sorry, that's my seat." (apology given to offender!) How about if someone wearing a tee-shirt with a large rooster on it walks down your street breaking car windows with a baseball bat. Would you feel a need to apologize to him, before calling the police? (Or getting together with a couple of neighbors and tackling him?) Problems with Wik dragged on because we don't have clear moral ideas, that all subscribe to. The problem with 172 _was_ resolved (without resorting to the Arbitration Committee), because we were all able to discuss it on the mailing list. But Abe maintains the posture of having taken offense, rather than realizing he offended, so the resolution remains incomplete. Imagine getting a phone call from the mother of the kid who was breaking car windows, demanding an apology: "How dare you tackle (or call the police on) him?" Would you say, "Sorry, I admit it was wrong for me to try to stop him from destroying things. I promise not to do it again."? That's ridiculous. Ed Poor