On 2 Jul 2007 at 09:33:36 +0100, "Tony Sidaway"
On 7/2/07, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com>
and a matter to be considered in future
elections. as a reference
point, Fred's term expires at the end of 2007.
My! You're a nasty bit of work, aren't you? Fred didn't make that
Given that the pro-link-ban side has been known to use their cliquish
power to torpedo people's election (in RfAs) using political litmus
tests, why is it so absurd to do the same on the other side? The
time I declined to descend to the same tactics, and supported rather
than opposing ElinorD for admin despite disagreeing with her position
on the issue, it came back to bite me when she made enforcement of
the so-called policy a top priority, even taking it to levels beyond
other pro-link-ban admins by actually deleting talk pages and
recreating them with offending link insertions removed from the
history. This makes me inclined to emulate the other side and take a
zero tolerance approach to electing anybody to any position if they
are involved in making or enforcing this link ban. That would likely
include others in the next election in addition to Fred, so he
wouldn't be singled out, though lately he seems to be taking the most
visibly ridiculous stance on the issue.
The way Fred is currently extending the original ArbCom decision,
it's like because a Supreme Court decision once observed that yelling
"Fire" in a crowded theater wasn't protected by the First Amendment,
now judges at all levels were enforcing this as a ban on saying or
writing the word "fire" in all contexts, like for instance censoring
the show "The Apprentice" because Trump says "You're Fired".
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/