On 6/16/07, James Farrar
<james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
No identifying details were revealed. If an admin
candidate (or anyone
else) is violating policy, they have to anticipate that they could be
found out at any time, not only when it's convenient for them.
The fact that it was announced (not discovered) at the single most
inconvenient time -- you surely can't be claiming that as a
coincidence, can you?
I didn't say it was. It was raised at that time, obviously, because
the account wanted adminship, but had made no mention of the use of
open proxies on his/her nom. S/he also didn't respond when asked why;
an e-mail would probably have sufficed but that didn't happen either,
so far as I know.
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).