"aggressive trolling not welcome here" Options

[mbz1]

Aggressive trolling not welcome here

I believe this should have it's own thread.
I see neither trolling nor aggression in the removed post.
The speed of the removal of this post indicates that Jimbo was not comfortable with it, but why?
The post was made not by IP, not by a sock.
It was made by profilic content contributor , the kind of contributors whose work make readers to donate to wikipedia.
It contained a valid questions of a person who clearly looking for ways to improve wikipedia, not to attack it.
Doesn't Jjmbo understand that removing posts with such edit summaries could evoke only bigger interest to these posts?

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[mbz1]

And here comes our own Radek
Selected quotes:

I suspect that you want stuff related to this put to rest. But reading over it again - particularly some of the more idiotic responses and ad hominen attacks that were made against Cla68 by devoted but misguided sycophants (this seems to always happen on this talk page, but not on other users' talk pages, mind if I borrow some of these courtiers sometime?) - it strikes me how much you and Wikipedia Review really need each other.

Think of the "biggest controversies" that have happened on Wikipedia so far, the ones that actually got spilled over into the "mainstream media". Let's pick Essjay and the short-selling thing. In both cases, WR was the first one to bring these up, did all the ground work and made Wikipedia look stupid as a result. BUT. What would have happened if WR had not existed? The chicanery would've come up sooner or later, and by bringing it up sooner rather than later, WR actually did Wikipedia a huge favor. How much worse would've it been if Essjay etc. kept on going for a year or two longer? Wikipedia would've wound up looking much worse as a result.

For all the hate talk towards WR by some Wikipedia devotees, it actually does the encyclopedia a huge favor. It's pretty obvious that one thing that Wikipedia is horrible at is self-criticism, self-reflection, and even self-correction (bad ideas, and even bad edits, persist and over time get incorporated into the institutional structure of the site). It needs an outside voice, no matter how disagreeable and cynical it is, that can serve as an INDEPENDENT check on it. Otherwise you just gonna get a lot of discussion about how great we all are. Which is nice and all, does great things for our self-esteem, but it is completely useless in terms of improving the project (not to mention it makes Wikipedians seem like a bunch of seven year olds in constant need of affirmation)

If Wikipedia Review didn't exist, you'd probably have to invent it.