Here's a thing re the voting. *I wanted to vote*, but couldn't because my original, 1-week "sock" block was extended by a week, for "evading" my block. Setting aside whether the original block was fair - my reason for editing anonymously was for privacy, but others called it avoiding scrutiny - the extension of my block was not fair because the IP that caused it was not me, which I think I argued well.
My last effort, on the last day of voting, to get the "evasion" block lifted was going to the unblock IRC (that was quite an experience) and proposing that I only vote and not do anything else until the block extension expired. Admins there would not agree to that proposal, plus they gave me some snark because of my ignorance of how the unblock process works. In fact, added to my list now of not-content issues (and I really would prefer to work on content) to address is the SPI/block process. It was aggravating as hell to want to discuss my situation privately, but be ignored, thereby not being able to defend myself without outing/confirming personal information. My choices were 1. Argue my position publicly and confirm outed, personal information (my IP address), or 2. Stay quiet and look guilty by not denying the charge. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around it. Lightbreather On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:33 AM, GorillaWarfare < gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Fæ <fae...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Perhaps one meaningful conclusion is that the fact that in this vote >> there was a lack of process to ensure that systemic bias was avoided >> or measured. It would be better if votes such as Arbcom's or trustee >> elections took active steps to ensure diversity in the voting >> community, and the candidates standing (I believe this is already an >> active process for inviting WMF trustee candidates or appointed >> posts). >> > > How would you suggest we ensure diversity in the Arbitration Committee > candidates and voting community? It's one thing to *encourage* diversity > among the Committee and voters, and another to *ensure* it. For one it > would require women (and members of other groups that are in the minority > on the Committee and on Wikipedia more widely) to be willing to run, which > I think is asking a lot with the current state of affairs with respect to > the Committee. > > – Molly (GorillaWarfare) > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
