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.wp@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 lightbreather2@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@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Fæ faewik@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