On 16/11/2007, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This argument seems to generally have been
exceptionally "clean" and devoid
of noticably policy-violation behavior on any side.
About all there was was some 3RR blocks on advocates of spoilers.
The advocates of spoilers were sure the action of removal of spoilers
was a violation of *something*, but shopped it to every venue they
could, including an MFD, a policy RFC, arbitration twice, mediation -
during which Ken seriously proposed putting back all 45,000 spoilers,
presumably including the ones on [[The Three Little Pigs]], [[Hamlet]]
and [[Anagram]] - and even the AutoWikiBrowser permissions talk page
... and failed to interest anyone in their cause. I suggest this is
because they didn't and don't have a case.
Phil, I understand that you're tired of it, but
you've been painting a
picture of an unethical opposition here which does not match my recollection
of events or any evidence I've seen posted anywhere.
Coming here and making false claims of ban threats in the
abovedescribed processes is not just sore losing, but odious.
- d.