Well, I believe I have on a community member hat, too, although I may be sitting in a corner with it right now. Are you familiar with the details of my block extension for "evasion"? First, it was made by an admin who possibly should *not* have <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#When_blocking_may_not_be_used> because of his involvement <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins>. Second, I explained that it was not me (the last/best yesterday <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lightbreather&diff=637210976&oldid=637195908>.) And third, and most convincingly, an (often) opponent of mine explained that he didn't believe it was me. Still, the involved, blocking admin decided to apply Occam's razor over the benefit of the doubt - or good faith, in WP terms.
On a separate note, this makes me wonder about something: Is an editor allowed to request an RFC/U on themselves? Lightbreather On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wearing my community member hat, I'm going to put my hand up and say I'd > really hate to see *any* blocked user unblocked specifically so they could > vote in *any* process, whether RFA, AFD, Arbcom or Board of Trustees. > > Risker/Anne > > > On 9 December 2014 at 14:33, LB <lightbreath...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
