On 10/11/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Fred, your response here is exactly the reason I think we shouldn't have a BADSITES policy, even the unwritten one we seem to have ended up with.
[snip]
No serious Wikipedia participant is interested in exposing anonymous editors for thrills, or supporting the barking loons that latch on to Wikipedia as the source of all their troubles. By trying ever harder to keep anybody anywhere from talking about SV, you and others have convinced a lot of people that no information-suppression policy could ever work. By overreaching so dramatically, I believe you have reduced your ability to protect other anonymous editors. And that's a shame.
Thank you for your post William, I think you were very clearly stated and a beacon of reason in these muddy waters.
Your concern was also very right: In the future when I see an effort to cover something up the current arbcom I'll be likely to distrust and investigate further because it's been demonstrated that the involved parties lack the good judgement to wield the power to suppress.
So far I've seen people attacked for attempting reasonable criticism or for even asking reasonable questions. Meanwhile the actual trolls are having more fun than ever because the actions of some of our leadership are giving people cause to reconsider their past dismissal of the claims that we're a bunch of cliquish manipulative censors.