On 7/5/07, Daniel R. Tobias <dan(a)tobias.name> wrote:
On 5 Jul 2007 at 21:19:57 +0000, "Fred
Bauder" <fredbaud(a)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