On 5 Jul 2007 at 21:19:57 +0000, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Referring to an active remedy as "vague statements" is essentially a declaration that she was free to ignore them. A mistake as they remain valid, although there is some doubt they apply to this particular edit.
Well, "Ignore All Rules" is an active policy, as is "Be Bold". And you state yourself that ArbCom doesn't make policy, and at times appear to believe that the ArbCom ruling in question doesn't apply to what she did in this case (though you seem to change your mind on this as often as the weather changes where I live in South Florida).
Dan Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
On 7/5/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 5 Jul 2007 at 21:19:57 +0000, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Referring to an active remedy as "vague statements" is essentially a declaration that she was free to ignore them. A mistake as they remain valid, although there is some doubt they apply to this particular edit.
Well, "Ignore All Rules" is an active policy, as is "Be Bold". And you state yourself that ArbCom doesn't make policy, and at times appear to believe that the ArbCom ruling in question doesn't apply to what she did in this case (though you seem to change your mind on this as often as the weather changes where I live in South Florida).
Dan, what you see as Fred changing his mind is in fact him expressing a nuanced view that balances the different concerns. It's perfectly coherent and very much welcomed.
On 7/6/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/5/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 5 Jul 2007 at 21:19:57 +0000, "Fred Bauder" fredbaud@waterwiki.info
wrote:
Referring to an active remedy as "vague statements" is essentially a declaration that she was free to ignore them. A mistake as they remain valid, although there is some doubt they apply to this particular edit.
Well, "Ignore All Rules" is an active policy, as is "Be Bold". And you
state yourself that
ArbCom doesn't make policy, and at times appear to believe that the
ArbCom ruling in
question doesn't apply to what she did in this case (though you seem to
change your mind on
this as often as the weather changes where I live in South Florida).
Dan, what you see as Fred changing his mind is in fact him expressing a nuanced view that balances the different concerns. It's perfectly coherent and very much welcomed.
While I agree that Fred's recent statements on the issue have been a breath of fresh air, I would not exactly call them "coherent" considering they flat out contradict Fred's previous statements (which imply that the MONGO ruling applies not only to ED but to other sites), but at the same time deny that there is any such inconsistency. It seems to me as if Fred has not completely made up his mind yet.
Johnleemk