A free forum you can't trust
If you look at the ProBoards assistance forum, you will see constant requests from admins of messageboards asking why their sites were yanked. ProBoards has a "section 25(a)" of its terms of service which states the following:
WITHOUT LIMITING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT, PROBOARDS RESERVES THE RIGHT TO, IN PROBOARDS' SOLE DISCRETION AND WITHOUT NOTICE OR LIABILITY, DENY USE OF THE WEBSITE AND/OR SERVICES TO ANY PERSON FOR ANY REASON OR FOR NO REASON AT ALL, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION FOR ANY BREACH OR SUSPECTED BREACH OF ANY REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY OR COVENANT CONTAINED IN THIS AGREEMENT, OR OF ANY APPLICABLE LAW OR REGULATION.
This angry-looking piece of legalese has been the death of more forums than I can count. If they want to, your messageboard can be junked for no reason at all. Some people have made claims that their sites were shut down because of the content in off topic forums the ProBoards wanted them to delete. I have no idea how truthful those claims are, but it seems like if you want to run a forum where you care about relying on the long-term online survival of the information on your forum, ProBoards is not the place to go (unless you backup the board constantly). Which means that ProBoards is the least-optimal platform for a Wikipedia-criticism forum ever. And that stinks because ProBoards has a pretty decent design, and I liked using it.
We still don't know why Wikipedia Sucks! was killed....angry Wikipedians, people who hated Rome Viharo being on the site, certain users of WO-MB; all of that and more are possibilities. I have to say that Greg Kohs claiming that there was "....plenty of defamation... libelous content, to be specific" speaks volumes. It should be said now that it wasn't my board; Mutineer set it up, Eric Barbour showed up before I did, and it went on from there. Killing the site didn't help; it just revitalized auggie's Wikipedia Review and it allowed us to form a new board in a safe location.