On 6/16/07, NSLE (Wikipedia) <nsle.wikipedia(a)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.