There's a heated debate in the comment section of the Signpost's latest "News and notes". Tony1 wrote a takedown of the English Wikivoyage in pretty inflammatory language, but as a news story rather than as part of the Signpost's foray into opinion.

Not surprisingly, the Wikivoyage folks have made various serious claims about the article - that e-mailed quotes were manipulated and pulled out of context, that content from Wikivoyage was presented in a false light, that the column was illustrated with images that have never actually appeared on Wikivoyage and that Tony1 himself has a very strong bias against Wikivoyage.

It's the last bit that is the most serious to me. A month ago, a discussion to ban Tony1 from Wikivoyage (which ultimately resulted in his ban) was proposed. Tony1's response:

"*Right, you'll never see me again. (Oh, you'll see me, but it won't be on this site.) It is morally reprehensible, and demonstrates a clear strategy to get rid of critical voices—anyone who dares to stand up to the boys' club here. From now on, I'll be deeply committed to letting Wikimedians know what a corrupt and bullying power structure has developed here. This is so dysfunctional it is laughable."*

This is a major departure from the traditional tone and approach of the Signpost and it's editors, and it's kind of sad. Whatever you think of the article debate itself (and there is more than one way to look at it), the fact that the piece was published that way - in the voice of the Signpost, without reference to Tony1's history, etc. - is a disappointing ethical lapse.