"David Gerard" wrote

On 17/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:

...

Not entirely fair on the AC. We don't need to apply legalistic phrasing to everything we do. Our job in principles is to bring out what is and isn't acceptable editor behaviour, in terms that make some sense in the light of policy and _custom_. Our customs are rarely written down. But when it is just a matter of saying "don't stretch wording to your own convenience" and "don't game things and think you are being clever, because you aren't", these are in the class of No Office Politics Here 101.

Unfortunately, such gaming was the reason the case was brought.

There are a couple of things in the proposed judgement that rule out stretching MONGO, or claiming a clear-cut application when it is no such thing.

Assuming the case closes later today as is - if you copy your point to WP:RFAR#Requests for clarification, I'll copy my reply. Deal?

Charles

----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam