[WikiEN-l] Editing with open proxies

[ElinorD]

I hope I'm posting the right way; this is my first attempt. All those
messages with long quotes from someone who was quoting someone else who was
quoting someone else who was quoting someone else are hurting my eyes, so
I'm not going to start with

>this and

>>this and

>>>this etc.

Just a couple of points. I don't think anyone has actually stated as a fact
that Charlotte knew that she was violating policy before running for
adminship; it has just been suggested as likely. However, James Farrar is
demanding evidence that she knew it.

Charlotte was Support Number 56 at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Armedblowfish,

a page which at the time of her vote was devoted to discussion of the whole
issue of policy and open proxies. This was at 02:28 on 5 June 2007. She
accepted her own admin nomination at 18:52 on 14 June 2007. Is it likely
that she supported Armedblowfish without even looking at the previous
comments?

I won't comment on the actual use of open proxies, as I don't fully
understand what it all means, but, as I've suggested on the RfA page, if she
had a really good reason to violate this policy, the best thing would have
been to have privately informed one or two members of the ArbCom beforehand.
The next best thing would have been to answer Jayjg's question as follows:
"Yes, I have a valid reason, but because of privacy issues, I'd rather not
discuss it here. I'm happy to disclose my reasons to any member of the
ArbCom by private email." That could have been followed by a post on the RfA
page or talk page from an ArbCom member (with or without a vote) saying that
they were completely satisfied with Charlotte's explanation.

Also, why are people asking again and again why the checkuser who discovered
this didn't block Charlotte when he discovered the use of open proxies, when
he has stated at least twice that he blocked the IPs? Blocks are
preventative and not punitive, and a blocked illegitimate IP presumably
leaves a good faith editor free to edit from a legitimate one.  That seems a
completely different issue from that of becoming an administrator while
every edit she makes violates an official policy. However, a statement from
an ArbCom member or a bureaucrat that Charlotte had disclosed her reasons by
private email and that they were found to be acceptable would probably have
swayed many of the opposers, some of whom opposed because of the defensive
reaction.

Finally, it's also being insinuated that the checkuser admin did this for
political reasons or in order to ruin Charlotte's RfA. Had they had any
prior encounter? Had they been in some content dispute? Of course I'm open
to the possibility, if someone can show me some evidence, but I can't see
any evidence of it myself. Since Charlotte's article work seems to have been
mainly reverting vandalism and adding or removing categories, it seems
unlikely.

ElinorD