Hi, Fred. fredbaud(a)waterwiki.info wrote: I agree that's a real problem, but I disagree that banning discussion is the solution. For everybody else's problems in the world, Wikipedia believes that the best solution is more information, not less. We believe that clear, neutrally stated factual information is the antidote to pretty much any sort of idiocy. Or at least that censorship won't help. Are you a conservative Christian who doesn't want your kids to find out about sex? Tough, we say. A holocaust survivor who believes that the holocaust deniers should never be mentioned again? Too bad. A suicide hotline worker who thinks that giving people more information on the topic is resulting in actual deaths? We might care, but we won't stop publishing. Our one proved skill is to dig into things and come to relatively neutral, factual understandings. As an admin, if I have been accused of malfeasance, what I want is for people to dig into it fairly, publicly, and in detail. Then, when somebody brings up the tired old accusation, I can point them to the independent investigation. Case closed. The last thing I would want is for all discussion to be banned. At best, that leaves people with lingering suspicions. At worst, the belief that if it's being covered up, there must be something there. And by not providing closure, it guarantees that things will come up again and again. We should fight false accusations with truth, not censorship. By acting like a false accusation is a terrible, horrible thing, we conspire to make it shameful. Instead, we should be conspiring to make it a non-event. William -- William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri