On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
She probably didn't reply because she (understandably) saw it as an attack, not a question, it being the first she'd heard about it (AIUI).
Well, no. The first s/he heard about it was when s/he first used an open proxy to edit.
It's kind of odd to attack someone for asking, during your RfA, why you're violating policy every single time you make an edit, yet want to be in a position where you can block others for policy violations. It's hypocrisy. If you want to change policy, argue for that change openly and honestly; don't sneak around in the night.
It's not hypocrisy to violate one policy yet want to be in a position to enforce others.
It's hard to think of a clearer example of hypocrisy than trying to stop others from doing what you insist on being allowed to do yourself, with no known extenuating circumstance.
You don't seem to understand what the term hypocrisy means, then.
I try to stop my son from drinking, but I insist on being allowed to drink myself. I try to stop felons from obtaining weapons, but I insist on being allowed to obtain weapons myself. Hypocrisy is, to quote the American Heritage dictionary, "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess". It is not the same as having a double standard.
Furthermore, this wasn't even an example of a double standard, because, as Steve Summit pointed out, Charlotte was not insisting on being allowed to block people for using open proxies.
OTOH, it is hypocrisy to pretend that you believe in a rule but let people get away with breaking it without trying to do anything about it.
The policy says users shouldn't edit from open proxies. It doesn't say they can be blocked, only that the IPs can.
So, wait a second, you think that a policy has to explicitly state that you can be blocked for violating it, in order for the policy to be enforced?
So far as we know, in this case the IPs were blocked, but the user kept on finding others. Therefore, there was nothing that could be done.
Can you think of a single other policy on the encyclopedia which people can break at will but which cannot be enforced in any way other than blocking of the IP addresses the person is using? This doesn't make any sense. If someone is violating policy, repeatedly and willfully, surely you could take them to arb com.
However, when that person stood for adminship and didn't reveal it, it became something that people commenting had a right to know about.
I've always taken the rule against open proxies to be a rule against open proxies, not a rule against the use of open proxies. And I'm obviously not the only one. If the rule is supposed to be more than that, then there should be some way to enforce the rule beyond just blocking IP addresses.