On 6/16/07, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
On 6/16/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar
<james.farrar(a)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.
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 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. However, when that
person stood for adminship and didn't reveal it, it became something
that people commenting had a right to know about.