I hope I'm posting the right way; this is my first attempt. All those messages with long quotes from someone who was quoting someone else who was quoting someone else who was quoting someone else are hurting my eyes, so I'm not going to start with
this and
this and
this etc.
Just a couple of points. I don't think anyone has actually stated as a fact that Charlotte knew that she was violating policy before running for adminship; it has just been suggested as likely. However, James Farrar is demanding evidence that she knew it.
Charlotte was Support Number 56 at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish,
a page which at the time of her vote was devoted to discussion of the whole issue of policy and open proxies. This was at 02:28 on 5 June 2007. She accepted her own admin nomination at 18:52 on 14 June 2007. Is it likely that she supported Armedblowfish without even looking at the previous comments?
I won't comment on the actual use of open proxies, as I don't fully understand what it all means, but, as I've suggested on the RfA page, if she had a really good reason to violate this policy, the best thing would have been to have privately informed one or two members of the ArbCom beforehand. The next best thing would have been to answer Jayjg's question as follows: "Yes, I have a valid reason, but because of privacy issues, I'd rather not discuss it here. I'm happy to disclose my reasons to any member of the ArbCom by private email." That could have been followed by a post on the RfA page or talk page from an ArbCom member (with or without a vote) saying that they were completely satisfied with Charlotte's explanation.
Also, why are people asking again and again why the checkuser who discovered this didn't block Charlotte when he discovered the use of open proxies, when he has stated at least twice that he blocked the IPs? Blocks are preventative and not punitive, and a blocked illegitimate IP presumably leaves a good faith editor free to edit from a legitimate one. That seems a completely different issue from that of becoming an administrator while every edit she makes violates an official policy. However, a statement from an ArbCom member or a bureaucrat that Charlotte had disclosed her reasons by private email and that they were found to be acceptable would probably have swayed many of the opposers, some of whom opposed because of the defensive reaction.
Finally, it's also being insinuated that the checkuser admin did this for political reasons or in order to ruin Charlotte's RfA. Had they had any prior encounter? Had they been in some content dispute? Of course I'm open to the possibility, if someone can show me some evidence, but I can't see any evidence of it myself. Since Charlotte's article work seems to have been mainly reverting vandalism and adding or removing categories, it seems unlikely.
ElinorD