My whole point is "reasonable" is an opinion, and really easy to justify when you're not part of the out-group. The stakes on this (who can edit one website that represents the de-facto knowledge on the internet) are either very high or very low depending on who you ask. The idea that people want to protect that makes sense.
What I feel does not make sense is pretending that you're "open" when you stifle millions of (innocent) people. To show the escalation, there are people who would gladly round up millions out of billions to throw in jail or murder for the sake of the safety of the rest of the group. And it would be reasonable to them because it provides the billions with safety. But I think its extremely reasonable for the millions (and in particular the innocent among them) to complain that "this isn't really the open, free, democratic society you promised and maybe you should admit that at this point".
TL;dr- Let's stop pretending Wikipedia is open to all and isn't about Wikipedians controlling Wikipedia.
What I feel does not make sense is pretending that you're "open" when you stifle millions of (innocent) people. To show the escalation, there are people who would gladly round up millions out of billions to throw in jail or murder for the sake of the safety of the rest of the group. And it would be reasonable to them because it provides the billions with safety. But I think its extremely reasonable for the millions (and in particular the innocent among them) to complain that "this isn't really the open, free, democratic society you promised and maybe you should admit that at this point".
TL;dr- Let's stop pretending Wikipedia is open to all and isn't about Wikipedians controlling Wikipedia.