On 17/06/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/16/07, James Farrar
<james.farrar(a)gmail.com> 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.
> > >
> > > How could she, if she was not aware of it until after accepting
the
nom???
> >
> > How could she not have been aware that she was using open proxies,
James?
Do you have any evidence that she was aware that she was using open
proxies *in violation of Wikipedia policy*, Slim? If you do, please
provide it.
I think the policy is fairly well known, and if it wasn't, all CW had
to do was explain that when asked about it. But instead, there was no
explanation at all.
This is getting a bit repetitive, so I'll summarize then stop
commenting unless there's a new point:
CW could have made arrangements with the ArbCom or Jimbo before the
nom to edit with open proxies if there were special circumstances.
S/he didn't. S/he could have mentioned them when accepting the nom.
S/he didn't. S/he could have explained on the RfA page when asked
about them. S/he didn't. S/he could have e-mailed Jayjg to explain
privately. So far as we know, s/he didn't. So it's a question of poor
judgment as much as the issue of open proxies.
I conclude from your failure to answer three calls for evidence to
back up your point that you have none.
James, why didn't he/she just respond "there's nothing wrong with that, is
there?" Occam's razor is often a helpful tool.