George Herbert wrote:
It's perfectly compatible to hold the opinions "I support SV" and "Why the **** did you all blow the list up this morning with atrociously inappropriate rape comparisons".
For me, this captures an important point that has often gotten lost in this.
I think it's very important to support editors in the face of abusive behavior. When I was small, I saw and lived through things that I was powerless to stop, and that gave me life-long motivation to fight bullying, abuse, and cruelty. And after 20+ years of on-line communities, I know well how important defending against abuse is to the health of any community, on-line or off.
However, I have frequently gotten the feeling that if I don't agree with pretty much anything that is intended to help with that -- no matter how effective I think it practice -- then I will be treated as some sort of soulless monster who not only supports abuse wholeheartedly, but is probably breakfasting on the still-beating hearts of babies and puppies.
I don't think this is intentional or malicious. I think people see a wrong and are upset. And I think that's great. I want them to defend the community. I want *everybody* to defend the community.
But as much as I love it when people are passionate about Wikipedia, I'd like us to remember the downsides of passion. To guard against the way it can cloud our judgments and magnify disagreement into division. To remember that in protecting the community, the goal is to make it stronger. For everyone.
William