|The stupid question is the question not asked|
a) Co-Rion: your changes seem OK, (however IMHO not needed) so go on and do them
b) Ya'akov I am very concerned about your post. You claim you are a kind of police having the right to control everything that is written related to Perl. And that this is only the best for us, as you would only oppose things that violate your understanding of what is acceptable for our community.
I am especially concerned that you (as the self-imposed higher ethic instance) blame and insult the anonymous monk. I felt unconfortable by many of the posts of that thread. That included anonymous posts, as well as posts by some named monks and by some using throw-away-accounts. So nothing special there.
The discussion inside perlmonks was in no way special than any other discussion on public forums: a questionable remark lead to many counterattacks, the involved parties called their allies, the amount of trolling and personal attacks increased, Godwin's Law was invoked and few days later the discussion ceased. And the community of monks provided their feedback by up- or down-voting the nodes.
You claim that this discussion painted the Perl community in a very bad light. I strongly disagree to this. The only thing that might have painted the community in bad light were some people carrying one side of this discussion to their blogs outside (to a place where discussion and voting is not possible).
You write There is no legitimate basis for interfering in this [the perlmoks} culture. So keep to this. We don't need no police. Nor new rules by someone not interested being part of the community.
In reply to Re^2: Additions to the FAQ and a Community Statement