No, nothing of the sort actually happened. Rather, he mentioned the fact that he had voted to leave it alone ten years ago, and that this was one of the few split decisions he could recall from his tenure as a board member. And the vote was 6-4 with 1 abstention, so it's not as if he represented a radical fringe position.

Nothing he said was to argue that the module should have been left alone or that it would be correct to do so today, and what little he said about his recollection of his 10-year-old memory could not plausibly be called sophistic or pedantic.

And, again, he censored the word. It's one thing to get upset seeing objectionable words in plaintext when reading the Python Discourse forum (or HN, for that matter). It's quite another to get upset by the fact that someone else is talking about something in a context where you can tell that it involves objectionable words somehow. Sometimes those discussions need to take place, because otherwise you don't actually form objectionable-word policies.

Finally: the PSF gets hosting for PyPI provided by Fastly - it would be prohibitively expensive at market rates. (By my back of the envelope calculations, it would cost a few times the entire on-the-books revenue of the PSF to pay for the downloads, if they had to pay AWS or a similar service.) Shouldn't they be the ones who get to decide what content is appropriate on their servers? (I certainly hope you aren't trying to say that people shouldn't be allowed to name their packages what they want to begin with, even if they're only distributed privately.)