On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@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).