On 6/16/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) nsle.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
SlimVirgin, you seem to have missed this question.
Look, it's obvious. Jay did something - rightly or wrongly - and many people are unhappy about how he went about it. Presumably, if CharlotteWebb was first asked to explain when they first used an open proxy to edit, as you claim, if no response was given the account would have been blocked for using open proxies, and the matter sent to ANI, which it wasn't.
I didn't say CW was first asked to explain when s/he first used an open proxy. I'm assuming she was first asked during the RfA.
The policy allows for the IPs to be blocked, not the accounts that use them, so the blocking issue is a red herring.
CW was asked during the RfA for a reason, and declined to give one. S/he could have offered a reason by e-mail if it was a sensitive thing. Instead, s/he stonewalled. It was that response as much as anything that caused the problem.
All you're doing is defending Jay to the core without even accepting what he did could be even *seen* as being highly inappropriate, and it does raise questions (as it has in the past). Without insinuating anything further, I think you might want to step back just ever-so-slightly and re-look the case over.
The position I take (and this is regardless of whether it involves Jay or anyone else) is that candidates for adminship have to be open and honest, and they ought not to be in violation of policies themselves, at least not deliberately. If they're not open and honest and at least making an effort to understand and follow policy, it's likely to come out at some point, and it's better that it comes out before they get the tools. This strikes me as so obvious, I'm struggling to understand why anyone would disagree with it.
On the matter itself I think that the concerns that this was aimed at sinking the RFA are founded. However, I think it would be a fair assumption of good faith to say that Jay probably wasn't thinking of sinking the RFA when he posted that question. However, the question could certainly have been asked by email, instead of throwing the dirty laundry out into public.
CW had accepted the nom; hadn't mentioned the open proxies; and people had started commenting. It's not clear there was time for an e-mail correspondence. It was up to CW to sort this out *before* accepting the nom.