User talk:L235

3rd amendment

Hi Kevin! Hope you're doing well, all things considered. I've been working on Engblom v. Carey—one of the only federal 3rd amendment cases—and thought you might be interested in helping out. There's been a renewed interest in the 3rd amendment recently (it went from 200 to 10k hits overnight last week), and it's a rare case which might be fun to get to FA. Let me know if you're interested, but I completely understand if you're too busy though! Hopefully things will be more stable by the fall and you're keeping safe. Wug·a·po·des 06:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Hey, it's terrific to hear from you! I am actually traveling right now, which as you might imagine is a somewhat difficult task at the moment. Give me a week, though, and I'll look it over  it'd be really fun to work with you Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 15:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Totally understand. My lease is up in a month, so I'm dreading having to move all my stuff in the current environment. Feel free to help when you can, if anything a fresh pair of eyes would be useful for making sure it's on the right track. Safe travels! Wug·a·po·des 19:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Wugapodes, if you're willing to have me along, I'd be interested in helping - I was actually just reading that article the other day while trying to explain Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to some friends. creffett (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
@Creffett: Of course! All help is appreciated. Wug·a·po·des 19:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The assembling of the stuffy arbs. Natureium (talk) 20:22, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Excised tangent

Hi Kevin, I wanted to reply to your comment but didn't have the space (and regardless it is a philosophical point unrelated to the request at hand). I wanted to focus specifically on ArbCom is not an investigative body. Our job is to decide disputes, not to go looking for them and the impact that sentiment can have on reporting abuse.

To start, most of the links I provided in my original statement were taken from the block log. I believe it is more than reasonable to expect arbitrators to have seen that, and I believe it is reasonable to expect them to look at links other administrators thought important to include in that block log. In my opinion this is fundamental due diligence for any administrator responding to reports of harassment, and I do not believe the arbitration committee should be given a lighter burden of due diligence than any given responding administrator. I understand that ArbCom is not in the business of investigations, certainly I do not expect you to have gone digging for the additional context I provided, but that simply cannot be an excuse to avoid looking beyond the original complaint.

Harassment is not restricted to editors who understand the preferred styling of arbitrators, and expecting everyone initiating a request have sufficient embodied cultural capital to meet an undocumented procedural burden, frankly, protects abusers. Other editors facing harassment see the arbitration proceedings, and their decision to report hinges on whether they believe you will take it seriously or not. The committee is tasked with deciding disputes, and part of that task is responding to allegations of harassment. The consequence is that individual members need to consider whether they are creating an environment that encourages victims to report. Declining without comment does not do that, declining for procedural deficiencies does not do that, and declining based on the statement with no mention of the six-year-long block log does not do that. It creates an environment and perception where victims would rather leave our project or seek action from outside the community instead of opening themselves to further harassment in front of a committee that will give more than a cursory glance if they aren't perfect.

To be clear, I am pointing out the consequences if your statement were taken to its conclusion and the perceptions that reasonable outsiders would have about the committee. I know it is not your intention and that you care as much as I do about countering systemic bias on Wikipedia. It is quite possible that you looked deeply into this matter before I commented, but that is not apparent. Countering an institutional culture that protects abusers means we need to be aware of how our expectations and biases contribute to a culture that makes victims feel like their reports will not be worth the time or risk. I understand that we have a rapport and that you were making reference to previous statements I have made on this topic, but not everyone is aware of that context or be as sympathetic a reader as I am. I'm sorry for this being so long and confrontational, but if nothing else I hope it prompts you to think critically about how our received knowledge contributes to the reproduction of systemic barriers. Wug·a·po·des 03:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)