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.
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.