Jimbo reassesses WR, His totally unself-interested reaction Options

[Eppur si muove]

Jimbo has posted on Cla86's page again.

I took you seriously

So I thought I'd go see what's up with WR. You gave a passionate defense of it as somehow useful to Wikipedia.

What was just about the first thing I found? You speculating in a disgusting, juvenile, and insulting manner about my personal finances.

I was disappointed, but I also must admit: it's about what I expected from you and from WR.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

[mbz1]

Mbz1

So, let's say Jimbo and/or govcom made a special standard offer to you: "You stop contributing to WR, and in 6 months we will lift your ban."
Would you have agreed on this offer?

Jimbo made the offer. I agreed and I kept to it. He didn't keep up his end. I wasn't really surprised. I've also followed every one of his suggestions and ArbCom suggestions with the goal always being moved further down the field or just ignored completely.

For how long you kept off WR?
Do you believe it was the right thing to do, I mean to accept the offer?
I could have understand, if you were asked not to make personal attacks, and/or false accusations,
but to keep off WR completely? Isn't this offer restricted your freedom of speech?

[gomi]

Isn't this offer restricted your freedom of speech?

In the U.S. and much of the world, anyone other than the government may (attempt to) restrict one's speech. Many forms of doing so (e.g. contracts) are perfectly legal and acceptable. In theory, at least, Wikipedia's terms of service could include a clause prohibiting Wikipedia account holders from posting here at the Review (or at cuddly-kittens.com for that matter).