QUOTE
QUOTE(dtobias @ Tue 30th June 2009, 8:22pm)
Publicly stating a list of ways of (allegedly) "destroying" Wikipedia and linking to it when taking actions that relate to one of the ways on your list is not the best move to make if you don't want to be banned from there; after all, to justify a ban all they need to do is take you at your word and state that keeping somebody around who openly wants to see the site destroyed is a bad idea. I'm well known for defending critics and gadflies against clique gangups, but it's hard even for me to defend this sort of thing.
Thats nonsense. As Ive pointed out recently Greg has stated that he wants to damage wikipeida yet they unblocked him.
Greg is kind of more cagey, indirect, and ambiguous about his specific intentions, hinting at some sort of unstated agenda but not directly saying he intends on trying to destroy or damage Wikipedia, let alone giving a detailed list of methods by which he plans on accomplishing it. This was still enough to get him lots of loud opposition onwiki, with people squawking about "How dare they unban him?", but the ArbCom did it anyway. Saying explicitly that one's intent is to "utterly destroy" Wikipedia (even if it's totally ludicrous that the stated techniques would have any chance of doing so) is harder to defend.
This post has been edited by dtobias: