[basementcat]

Isn’t it good to see that no one is "above the law", even if they’re a benevolent dictator?

[gedy]

Sure if he was being hurtful, hateful, etc. But is comment hardly seems wrong in light of the community guidelines: https://discuss.python.org/guidelines

More seems it's just embarrassing to the committee so they banned it.

[__d]

You could read Guide's message (assuming the first comment is quoting it accurately) as being sarcastic about Tim Peters' banning. The mods probably feel like this is undermining their authoritah, and dropped the banhammer.

[kadoban]

It reads to me as kind of petty sniping that's unlikely to really contribute anything useful to the conversation. But not something that really seems worth hiding either...

[__d]

I guess it could be considered to breach the Code of Conduct, disrespecting the decision to ban Tim?

  Being respectful. We're respectful of others, their positions, their skills, their commitments, and their efforts.

[dm270]

This seems to be the perfect pretense to justify any sort of banning an organized majority would want.

[rdtsc]

The question is always who enforces the law and if and how they choose to enforce it.

[II2II]

If the comment was the reference to a banned member, was the action actually inappropriate?

If the banning of the member alluded to was inappropriate, there is a time, place, and tact to address that. If the process does not allow for that, then you work towards changing the process. If the governing body doesn't allow for that, then why the heck would you make a comment that could derail a discussion regarding how that governing body is elected?

[rdtsc]

> If the comment was the reference to a banned member, was the action actually inappropriate?

Yes

> why the heck would you make a comment that could derail a discussion.

Banning the poster derailed the discussion even more. So much so, it made it to front page of HN.

I am not arguing they shouldn't have banned Guido because of who he is; I am arguing banning anyone should have a pretty high threshold, and when it happens it should be done with extreme transparency. Asking to wait for a member to join the discussion later about a relevant topic shouldn't come anywhere near that threshold.

[OhMeadhbh]

   I agree.  But didn't he give up the Benevolent Dictator for Life
   moniker?  Sounds like a King Lear situation...

      Since now we will divest us both of moderation authority,
      Interest of ban-hammering, cares of tweets,--
      Which of you shall we say doth love us most?
      That we our highest privilege in the comments forum may extend
      Where nature doth with merit challenge. Tim,
      Our eldest-born, speak first.

[riknos314]

"the law" is always subject to interpretation in a given context. The entire concept of case law is that "the law" has been interpreted in a certain way in a similar context before.

[bsder]

When two of the most important people to a project get banned, who is more likely incorrect? The bannors or the bannees?

[breck]

Just because it is a well known quote, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

No one is above god's law (aka physics).

No one is above the _spirit_ of [man's] laws.