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 <lightbreather2(a)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 <
gorillawarfarewikipedia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Fæ <faewik(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap