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.