So, to summarize the story, there was a perfectly clear question about a feature in demand

http://serverfault.com/questions/647891/make-fail2ban-use-public-blacklists

looking for a method to block blacklists of known attackers in one firewall-like server software--something others of its kind already included, and network admins in the field had come to expect.

One probably well-meaning commentator decided to run around screaming "It can't be done! It can't be done! There must be a reason nobody's doing it!!" (factual error). etc.

When presented with a compelling analogy to how email spammers are collected into lists, which are then shared as blacklists to protect the rest before they get spammed (a process that did not always exist, but naturally developed eventually), it seemed that obscure rationalization took place to try and maintain the earlier discouragement with further misinformation and as if resistance to innovation.

Then, as if in shock, disapproved the OP's efforts to go ahead and implement a module that was apparently yet missing in this newer software, shooting it down with irrelevant or ignorant statements. Statements which seemed to pick up popularity. His downvotes were naively amplified by lurkers, possibly due to his landslide advantage of site points (derived from activeness over an extended length of time on this particular forum, basically. Apparently not necessarily from competence).

Then, rather than stand aside to let another "go ahead and do the impossible" (in his opinion), after the OP went ahead and designed, tested and released the missing feature to the public, which could prove to be a greatly valued addition to preemptively thwart attacks esp. on still vulnerable machines, he actually immediately downvoted the answer!

Of course, some of what happened behind the scenes is extrapolated based on Occum's Razor. We are not all omniscient admins on this SE to see who votes how on what & why. Still, the end result impression reflects poorly on this SE itself, or that the self-governing community mechanisms are not perfect and need to be reviewed.

In this case, to be specific, a good starting solution born out of a very real need and timely question, got rewarded with punitive downvotes, loss of points, and negative or misleading comments, however which found more popularity and support from the community. Maybe the lower the points the better, in that case? Or perhaps, they actually indicate what this SE is valued to the user, not what value a user has on this SE.