Again, we disagree. By even asking that question (suffixing an accusation with a question mark does not make it less of an accusation - something I'll beat the mainstream media over the head with to my dying breath), you're accusing the other person of taking an action in bad faith: retaliatory creation of a rule in direct response to reasonable criticism.

On top of that, it's unfalsifiable! How would he go about proving that the guideline update wasn't a result of anger over reception of his article?

Now, say that's actually correct. Okay, so? We can't have a substantive discussion how much of a villain you think someone might be. Indeed, the motivations behind the rule are unknown beyond what he tells us, and we can only speculate.

Groundless speculation does not make for very good discourse - hence why it's a bad idea to even go there.

What we can talk about all day long are the implications of that rule and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing. There are plenty of arguments to be made there. Sam's motivations aside, since we don't know them, shouldn't even really enter into it.