Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

As one of the editors who has experienced not inconsiderable real life concerns as a result of the unfortunate remark of July 2014, and especially as a result of the ensuing community dialogue that "if it is too impolite for women here, why don't you just leave!" I shall be interested to monitor the outcome of this case. Many individuals like me who are active in the offline world of Wikipedia and open culture can not participate in site administration, movement leadership, or governance as a result of such concerns. That said, we should be clear that it is the remit of the Wikimedia Board, and not of Arbcom, to determine whether the US based non-profit funding this site intends to uphold the standards of a non-hostile working environment as defined in US law. Absent such guidance from the Board, we must assume that Arbcom may set social norms for the site as it sees fit. --Djembayz (talk)

This has zero to do with the events of last July, they have to do with the behaviors of editors since that time. Hostile environments are created everyday and you'd be mistaken to think that polite words and flowers can't make a hostile environment just as easily as adult language. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that there is more than one way to create a hostile environment. I'd like to point out that although your opinion is that the events of last July (which resulted in lengthy and acrimonious discussions between proponents and opponents of the use of vulgar sexual terms when interacting with other volunteers) are not relevant to the matter at hand, those events are the situation that is referred to in the opening statement by the person who filed the case, as being a source of the "battleground mentality". One additional thing to consider in this regard: it appears in this case that we may be looking at a change in direction, in which requesting interaction bans is no longer considered an appropriate way to deal with editors who one finds inappropriately vulgar/sexual-- which may exclude some of our less aggressive editors, especially female editors, from participation in specific topic areas. --Djembayz (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the canvassing at GTTF before I saw Black Kite's evidence. I removed the section in question, as I thought that was extremely inappropriate, since this case is not framed as one around GTTF. Certainly, if someone were to open a case against me, I would not expect to see notifications at WikiProject Texas A&M or at WP:FAC. Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The canvassing has been restored by GRuban. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karanacs and Black Kite, I'm sorry you saw that as canvassing. It seemed reasonable to inform people interested in how women fare on WP, particularly during dispute resolution (a major issue when it comes to the gender gap), that something related to those issues is happening.

Editors who watchlist GGTF support it to varying degrees, including not at all. There's no expectation that the notice will be seen only or mostly by people supportive of LB. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 19:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As (sorta-kinda) active in GGTF, I found the notice informative and relevant. That the task force is mentioned so many times here seem reason enough to inform about it.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) To my knowledge, it is NOT common to post notices about Arb cases to WikiProjects at which someone is a member (no matter how many times an editor invokes the name of the WP in his/her initial case statement; one can say whatever one wishes in the statement that may or may not have any bearing on the case). I think the notice was completely inappropriate, unless someone was posting notices about every single Arb case that involved a female (and that, I think, would be in poor taste). Perhaps the notice would be appropriate after the case were decided, but not during the evidence phase. Karanacs (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GGTF isn't exactly your average task force and I believe there might be room for interpretation. Now, I'm definitely not versed in the complexities of ArbCom etiquette, but I'm not seeing any indication that either the letter or spirit of any rules have been breeched. But what do I know?

Peter ^Isotalo 20:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think Sarah's "canvassing" has any potential for doing harm to the process, or skewing anything. Black Kite compared it to alerting particular groups for an AfD,[1] but it's not really the same. AfD is for establishing consensus, and while it's not supposed to be a simple head-count, it often is. The purpose of the arbitration evidence page is quite different. If an alert at GGTF should bring in, say, irrelevant criticism of other users, or opinion pieces in the garb of evidence, as I suppose is the subtext of the critics here, the arbs will (one would hope) disregard such contributions. Also Sarah makes a good point that GGTF members support the project, and a fortiori support LB, to varying degrees. Very varying. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

(Note this is solely my own opinion, not on behalf of the Committee.) I believe Bishonen is essentially correct. In an arbitration case, the same people will be deciding the final outcome, no matter else who comes across the case. In an AfD or the like, while numeric counts are not the sole factor to the final outcome, they are not utterly ignored by the closer either, so in that case, canvassing is likely to cause a skewed result that doesn't actually reflect the consensus of the wider community. In an arbitration case, anyone who can present relevant and useful evidence is welcome to, while anyone who presents irrelevant or redundant junk just gets it ignored. The more relevant material gets presented, the better of a decision we can craft. So while it shouldn't be taken to the extreme of spamming, I generally don't see an issue with notifying people who might be interested in presenting such evidence that a case is underway. I would make the minor clarification that this is not a case against Lightbreather, but rather a case involving Lightbreather. In this case, like any, the behavior of all involved is subject to review. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"people interested in how women fare on WP" and suddenly this ArbCom case is a women vs. men battleground (in addition to the earlier Interactions at GGTF) with Lightbreather being for the noble cause of women and those who present evidence against her being forces of the male supremacy prevalent in Wikipedia trying to put down women. Really SlimVirgin, perhaps the radical feminist approach to everything isn't very constructive in a collaborative project like this. --Pudeo' 03:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not anticipate problems before they appear. If a battleground environment starts to emerge, the arbitrators and clerks will address it then. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but since when does informing a wikiproject in which an editor has been involved with amount to a "radical feminist approach"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Several people posting on this page seem to misunderstand this case as "Interactions at GGTF 2". DeCausa (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody misunderstands, the tactic is transparent. Eric Corbett 17:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presented some diffs in my request to open the case. Do I need to copy them to my evidence section to make sure they stay front and center, or is that a waste of limited text? Thanks, Karanacs (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent question. In addition to herself and the seven editors Karanacs has named in her opening statement and evidence, there are three others for whom I would like to provide evidence of long-term harassment, tag-teaming, gun-control and GGTF DS violations, and socking (that contributes to these problems). Lightbreather (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been numerous discussions/notices on Karanacs talk page since she announced at 18:51, 28 April 2015 on Sitush's talk page - iBan: You and Lightbreather - that she was going to start a case against me:

• 20:52, 28 April 2015 discussion fyi by EChastain
• 22:39, 28 April 2015 notice You've got mail by Hell in a Bucket
• 13:20, 30 April 2015 discussion Elephant in the room by Sitush
• 18:26, 30 April 2015 discussion LB arbcom by Scalhotrod
• 18:16, 2 May 2015 discussion wer by EChastain

*00:48, 3 May 2015 notice Arbitration case opened by ArbCom clerk [point of reference]

• 18:45, 3 May 2015 discussion Mail by Scalhotrod
  • 17:56, 4 May 2015 comment by Scal: Maybe I triggered some kind of automated [email] block by using it too many times in a row.
• 13:58, 4 May 2015 discussion Tip of iceberg? by Sitush
  • 22:22, 4 May 2015 sub-discussion Coming storm by Scalhotrod

There has also been a comment by Eric Corbett,[2][3] which Karanacs deleted[4] with the edit summary "i agree."

Look at the May edits on her talk page since I started to compose this discussion: [5]

Disregarding individual violations of WP:IBAN, WP:AGF, WP:FORUM, and WP:CANVASS, this adds up to WP:BATTLEGROUND. That which has been discussed since the ArbCom was opened also violates WP:ARBPOL. Certainly Admissibility of evidence, and maybe some other areas, too?

I request that the committee add the above-named persons as involved parties. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget to include...

• 4 May 2015 comment in Mail by EChastain, "As I said, I'm very concerned about retaliation...." "... I'm not at all confidence [sic] I can do it right and not bring more harassment from LB's helpers." --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]