On 9 December 2014 at 15:14, LB <lightbreath...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > >
I do know why you were blocked, and I think it was appropriate, and I'll leave it at that except to point out that the rule was instated in 2007 or 2008 because editors were making a mockery of arbcom cases and other key discussion spaces by using multiple accounts/editing logged out/pretending to be someone else/etc. And no, there's no point in asking for an RFC/U because RFC/U has now been deprecated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_% 28proposals%29#Do_Away_with_RFC.2FU You could try an editor review, although that will focus primarily on editing rather than other issues. Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
