[WikiEN-l] Editing with open proxies

[James Farrar]

On 17/06/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/17/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 17/06/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/17/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 17/06/07, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Not nearly as simple as the theory that he/she knew editing from
> > proxies
> > > > was
> > > > > against policy.
> > > >
> > > > Once again: Evidence?
> > >
> > >
> > > James, you can't keep throwing up convoluted theories without any
> > evidence
> > > whatsoever, and then challenge others for evidence when they present
> > much
> > > simpler ones.
> >
> > Jay:
> >
> > Mine is not a convoluted theory; it simply assumes good faith and poor
> > judgement.
>
>
> And ignorance. It's convoluted.

If I am ignorant of the evidence, it's not for want of asking for it!

>> You are proposing a theory that does not, on the face of it, assume
> > good faith, hence it is imperative that you provide evidence for it.
>
>
> I had no theory when I asked the question, which is why I asked it.

You have a theory now, or so it seems: that CharlotteWebb knowingly
violated WP:NOP.

>> That you fail to do so weighs against you.
>
>
> You're really not in a position to make that kind of judgement.

Sure I am, when forming my personal opinion of your conduct.

That doesn't mean that my opinion has any bearing on anything, of course.

> And here are two more questions you still haven't answered: you
> > apparently knew some time ago that CharlotteWebb was violating NOP.
> > How long ago did you know, and why did you wait until she was
> > nominated for Administrator before bringing it up?
>
>
> I've actually answered the second question elsewhere, but why does it
> matter?

Not in this thread, as far as I can see. Could you clarify where you
answered it? A URL would be helpful.

I note that you persist in refusing to answer the first question.

It matters because I'm trying to analyse your motives in this, to
understand your enforcement of NOP. Refusing to answer questions
really doesn't make you look good, though of course you may not care.