On 2 Jul 2007 at 09:33:36 +0100, "Tony Sidaway" tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
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 decision alone.
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".