I leave it to doob to decide. I don't feel that a third party casting votes via doob's account has much right to privacy. This is, in fact, what I think happened, though I can't be certain. I have reasons for believing this, most of which I didn't and won't publish.

If those particular votes were actually cast by doob, I don't expect doob to mind anyway. Those particular votes were not cast for or against any particular monks, I didn't even expose any information about a particular voting pattern (this can't be a voting pattern unless doob only votes a few times each year as that is how infrequently he'd have a new page full of obfuscations that he could vote for). So I don't consider the particular voting instances of a sensitive nature for all of the above reasons. But I still wouldn't have published that except that doob asked, in public, for an explanation of where his votes went. I certainly expect that people doing that have some expectation that some public disclosure about where their votes went could be a result of such a request.

I do wish that I had come up with a more vague term than "university". Although you see "no apparent benefit", I did and do see a point in pointing out that there is an entity involved in allocating IP addresses and that this policy may be relevent here. Here, again, I have reasons for thinking that this may be relevent that I didn't and won't publish. Disclosing that doob has some association with some university is pretty slim information, but I wish I'd said "institution" or such instead.

But I still wouldn't have published that except that doob asked, in public, for an explanation of where his votes went.

Maybe he asked in public because he didn't know where else to ask? Does he know whether this is an appropriate matter for which to /msggods? Does he even know about gods? I don't see anything in the FAQ about this.