jayjg wrote:
On 6/17/07, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Steve Summit wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
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.
Is this in the RfA guidelines? "If you've been using an open proxy to edit, in violation of WP:NOP, first figure out a plausible reason for having done so." Will that be in there now?
This all reminds me of the neverending shenanigans over political appointments in the U.S., whenever there's a different party in the executive and legislative branches. Every time, the stonewalling party has to figure out a new way to torpedo the evil other party's appointment, since all the old tricks are known and circumvented by now.
If you're going to go there the Scooter Libby situation could be more analogous.
A convicted felon? This rhetoric is becoming increasingly absurd.
It's only an analogy , which in some ways may fit better than what Steve was suggesting. Remember too that Libby was not convicted for outing the CIA agent, but something completely different. Carrying the analogy a little further: spying may be viewed asbeing as much against the rules as editing through an open proxy.
Ec