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 <[email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Fæ <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
