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. [[Robert Bork]] lost it over "adult" video rentals, although the Senate realized in hindsight that this was too powerful a weapon and hastily passed a special law making video rental information private. [[Zoe Baird]] lost it over an unpaid nanny, and now we all have to fill out a few new questions on our tax forms about any household helpers we've employed.