[WikiEN-l] Editing with open proxies

[jayjg]

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:
> > > > On 6/17/07, James Farrar <james.farrar at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > AGF lasts only until proven that it shouldn't.
> > > >
> > > > In my case, of course, it never started, and were is the EVIDENCE that
> > > > it now "shouldn't".
> > >
> > > Your behaviour in perpetually failing to answer a straight question
> > > from me with a straight answer.
> >
> > As opposed to CW's identical behavior?
>
> Which straight questions from me has she not answered?

CW hasn't answered straight questions from me, but you have
continually excused that, and come up with all sorts of farfetched
reasons why she might not do so. Remember? That's the good faith you
extended to CW but refused to extend to me.

>
> > > I am now minded to believe that you will never answer these two questions.
> >
> > Well, as explained before, I've already answered one of the questions,
>
> I asked you for a link to that, since it wasn't answered in this
> thread. You didn't answer that, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uncle_uncle_uncle#TOR_proxy_users

>
> > and you're neither a prosecutor nor a judge.
>
> When did I say I was?

You didn't state it, you just took on the role.

>
> > There's no particular
> > reason I should answer questions from an obviously hostile questioner
> > who has been applying outrageous double standards in this incident
> > from the very start.
>
> Seriously: I *want* you to tell me that you informed her of her policy
> violation, and that she continued to violate policy. If you do that,
> *then* I will support you, and oppose her nomination. But you
> *haven't*; conspicuously so. If at the start of this, you had simply
> given me a date when you did so, then you wouldn't have been bombarded
> with a dozen or more unnecessary emails from me.

A number of CheckUsers were aware of CW's use of TOR proxies; I don't
know if any of them notified her that it was a policy violation. I did
not contact her about it. By the way, I know of one other regular
editor who uses TOR proxies, but in the case of that person, it is
obvious to me why they do so, and the reason is understandable.
However, in the case of CW, it is unclear why he/she uses proxies,
which is why I asked.

It seems clear that CW was aware it was a policy, at least when CW
voted on the ArmedBlowfish RFA, which was exactly about editing using
TOR proxies.

> If my questioning is hostile, it is because your answers, such as they
> are, leave a great deal to be desired.

The entire tone of your e-mails have been hostile from the start, and
have shown a rather absurd double standard which you have yet to
acknowledge. Think about that.