The language of the board resolution doesn't come down hard enough on the side of verifiable information. That is, if something is verifiable, even a direct quote from the subject themself, then that information should be allowed to be included, and should not be forcibly stopped from inclusion by aggressive article patrollers-with-tools. It seems to me that the way the language is worded, the board is going to continue to allow harassment of those editors conscientious to the evidence, at the expense of verifiable evidence already broadcast widely across the net.
So I have strong doubts that anyone who like I, has spoken out forcibly for the inclusion of any verifiable information, would even be selected for a committee like this one. If I gave a published interview ten years ago where I admitted that I was once a male hooker, well that's the bed I made I made and now I have to sleep in it. Our job should not be to suppress what's already been published, and the board should make a strong statement that any tool-user who acts to suppress published information should be de-sysopped, so the playing field can be levelled. It's hard enough to fight a billy club using only a bullhorn.
Will Johnson