In reply to Otto.

@otto Yes, that’s what this article is about. But my point was not. My point was that this was approved and sanctioned by the plugin team in the first place and was allowed to be released to the public. If any other plugin author did the same thing, they’d be at leave given a very stern talking to and have their plugin removed from the repository until the problem was resolved. While it’s good that its’ been removed, it should not have been allowed in the first place as no one other plugin would have been allowed with that code in it. I understand that the “guidelines” are open to interpretation, but they do seem to be interpreted in some inconsistent ways sometimes – with this being a prime example.