:Hello, Patrick, thank you for the query. As an ''explanatory'' essay this page is meant to be an uncontentiously factual explanation of objective policy, nothing more and nothing less. The excerpt in question serves as a standing warning, and omitting the explicit articulation of such a warning would not change the fact that it is a factual statement beyond any level of debate. To claim that it is a “threat without teeth” is to reject the assertion that it is policy that it is uncontentious policy that is being explained objectively, without room for opinion. It is a simple factual statement and nothing about it should be contentious in any way whatsoever. Yes, it is strongly stated, but only because if there is a single takeaway editors should get from this page, it is that. That is quite literally the key point of the entire concept. If there is a specific good faith point of contention underlying this belief to the contrary, it would be entirely unclear where exactly such a sentiment would stem from. You would need to present an objective policy justification as to why the statement isn’t factually true beyond any and all reproach, which is, of course impossible, because it is simply a reflection of the reality of Wikipedia’s policies. I believe the page amply cites the underlying policy, but if you can provide a more specific articulation of your understanding of why that wouldn’t be the case, I would be more than happy to address any such concerns with specific policy basis and update the page to make the uncontentious factual basis of the statement more obvious. [[User:Swarm|<span style="color:black">'''~Swarm~'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Swarm|<span style="color:DarkViolet">{sting}</span>]]</sup> 05:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
