Statement by Sceptre[edit]

The community has proved itself unwilling to improve itself in how it treats women editors, and issues regarding women. Thus, it falls to the Arbitration Committee—or even more drastically, Foundation fiat—to bring the hammer down. This is something which has been obvious to women editors for a very long time. For example, see the article about the 2014 Isla Vista killings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in which organised POV pushers insisted on the inclusion of category because the opposite category was included (for a multitude of good reasons), despite said inclusion being in violation of our foundational policies.

I recall an incident about five years ago in which Jimbo Wales stepped in when an admin edit warred to keep misogynist content on the front page. I honestly doubt that he would be able to do so now. The lunatics are running the asylum, and it's driving editors away by the day. I honestly feel the Wikipedia's "woman problem" is not going to get any better unless drastic action is taken. We've tried the carrot; it's now time for the stick. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I think there may be parallels to be drawn with the Chelsea Manning debacle. For almost certainly the same reasons. Neutrality in an hostile environment is abetting hostility. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir[edit]

I am somewhat involved in this, particularly in the now-closed ANI. As I expressed there, I have serious concerns about Eric Corbett's incivility, general disruption, and personal attacks against Carolmooredc and other users. Please see this section for details about my concerns and evidence supporting my claims.

I am on the fence about this ARBCOM filing. I agree with Carolmooredc's above comment that more time could/should be given to the editors in question after the close of the ANI. However, I am highly pessimistic about the ultimate outcome and feel that the ANI was not given the serious attention it deserved and that what is clearly unacceptable behavior by Eric Corbett was overlooked or ignored. As I mentioned in the ANI, threats of administrative attention/punishment has been enough to temporarily halt the offending behavior from Eric Corbett, but the behavior soon-after resumed.

Something does need to be done about the disruptive behavior on the project. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ihardlythinkso[edit]

ANI was closed inconclusively?! Perhaps you simply didn't like the close and are now forum shopping. The close clearly implied that grounds for allegation of disruption were misconstrued. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slightly involved AnonNep[edit]

Given that any decisions by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force will need to be approved by the broader WP community, through relevant processes, in order to take effect, I believe ongoing comments by those questioning the very existence of the project, at the 'in project' discussion stage, are disruptive. (There will be be plenty of discussions they can argue against if any proposal reaches the WP policy stage).

I do think it is unfortunate that Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s personal history has been brought into this but I don't think this can be completely laid against those accused of disruption. A project like this needs to represent all those effected not just a chosen figurehead. Some people bring unconnected baggage with them.

I don't want to see anyone banned, but would have preferred some form of warning at ANI, to give the project some space to develop ideas that will be then be taken to WP forums where they may well be cut down. That hasn't happened. I would at least like to see some prohibition on questioning the project's very existence before it has time to bring any proposals to the broader community for debate. AnonNep (talk)

Comment by Knowledgekid87[edit]

This is not going to be solved by shaking hands and making up, it is clear that there is editor dis-function going on with this project. Something or someone has to give in order for this to be resolved and I do not see any clear path towards this. I just undid an edit that linked Carol's alleged passive-aggressiveness to a mental disorder: [1] the attacks keep piling on, no editor or editors should have to go through this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that Sitush's name was brought up on ANI here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban between Carolmooredc and Sitush proposed I feel Sitush should be an involved party here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Rschen7754[edit]

SPECIFICO and Carolmooredc were both parties to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics, and had topic bans passed against them. To see the same two parties here too is concerning. --Rschen7754 04:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by JMP EAX[edit]

For what's worth, I'm repeating here the opinion I've already expressed [twice] on Jimbo's talk page: this is exactly the kind of case that ArbCom should take on. (The older discussion is now archived.) The ANI/community participants failed to resolved the conflict, but the [behavioral] issue(s) keep coming up. JMP EAX (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom, you were saying... [2]? It is funny how an edit war that could be easily solved with blocks became the banning case despite being featured in exactly one ANI thread, but this isn't worth your attention. JMP EAX (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a rare case of the community managing to not deadlock itself (on a brouhaha like this), that thread was closed with a tangible result [3]. And it was soon followed by the opening of another thread [4]. It's probably wise to wait and see how that turns out. JMP EAX (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@clerks or whoever might know this: this case has been stuck in the request phase for 3 weeks now. I see the votes are 7/4 as of now with a majority of 6 needed to open out of 11 arbs. Is the case stuck because 7-4 < 6 or how does this work because 7+4=11 so unless some [more] arbs change their votes [again?] this seem forever stuck or something. I can't say that the way this has been dragged for the past two weeks improved my opinion of ArbCom... JMP EAX (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tarc[edit]

Only tangentially involved in this one, no worries Arbcommers! As I see this, there is a serious problem if an editor or several editors join and comment in a WikiProject to which they appear to be diametrically opposed to the very premise of said project. There's a line between healthy dissent and intentional thwarting of a project's aims, and if you accept this case, I think the evidence will show disruption, e.g. "feminist bluster" and "strident feminists running riot"

What would one do with an atheist who holds religion in utter contempt if they joined WikiProject Christianity? Or a Republican that sought to stymie efforts at WikiProject Democratic Party to bring Democratic politician pages to FA status?

• A new wrinkle to consider; Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore, trending towards deletion. Revenge article-writing on one's wiki-opponents is quite an old tactic around here, one thought to be long-forgotten.

Statement by Scottywong[edit]

My only involvement in this was to close the ANI thread. My opinion is that an arbcom case on this situation would be a colossal waste of time. I admit that I might be biased, however, because I believe that the majority of arbcom cases are colossal wastes of time. The primary activities that occur on Wikipedia can be lumped into 3 categories, in order of usefulness to the project:

1. Editing articles
2. Talking about editing articles
3. Talking about talking about editing articles

We're currently doing #3, and this RFAR is a request to extend #3 to an extreme degree. My opinion is that we'd be better off jumping back a level to #2.

As I said in my closing statement at ANI, this is simply a case of editors (on both sides) that need to grow up and act like adults. The Wikiproject members need to realize that criticism is not always disruption, and learn how to accept criticism and use it to strengthen their ideas, rather than rejecting it and attempting to silence it by banning editors from the discussion. The editors who are accused of disruption need to realize that their criticism will be easier to swallow if it is delivered compassionately, as opposed to delivering it in a cantankerous and argumentative manner.

Now, we could either end this now and encourage the editors to work this out among themselves, or we can spend weeks generating gigabytes of discussion to come to the same conclusion, shoot out a couple of toothless admonishments, and end up at the same point. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 17:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Milowent[edit]

I'm uninvolved; stumbled across all this after seeing Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Missing_articles and then creating back labor in a moment of epiphany that it was hard evidence the gender gap exists.

But taking this case would be premature, as Carolmooredc says. if the project fully supported it as now necessary, I might think differently. But once I realized Eric is the artist formerly known as Malleus, I laughed my ass off. I like the guy from afar, but he's a drama magnet who can offend whoever he has a mind to, women have no lock on that. A few cranky editors causing problems at a project is unfortunately par for the course around here (oh the abuse WP:ARS has suffered!), and while it may be more problematic due to the greater focus now rightfully being given to our norms which may deter female editing, this current dispute is not something an arbitration can solve at this point. Maybe down the road. Declining to take this spat doesn't mean Arbcom believes gender diversity (a ha another one I just created; wtf, how did it not already exist?) is not of crucial importance.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by I JethroBT[edit]

Also not involved in this situation.

Based on the ANI close, I'm not convinced other editors or the parties involved are able to meaningfully resolve the issue. Conflicts on this particular project page may cease, but they will likely arise someplace else with some of the same players, perhaps on an article or on another project. I'd like to point to findings of fact in this case that are worth evaluating in this situation:

• Fair criticism - Was the discourse around the merits / criticism of the project dignified and did it involve personal attacks?
• Good faith and disruption: Was the discussion around criticisms disruptive, even if it was made in good faith?
• Baiting: Were comments made that would understandably provoke another edtior?

Arbcom has been reluctant to rule on civility-based issues in the past, but many committee members agree that it is a significant issue. What is clear to me that when committee members say things like when there is no need to escalate with snark and rudeness, please don't escalate with snark and rudeness ([5]) that are flagrantly obvious to most of us, there are some editors who persistently do not care, and it's really not OK to believe that repeating such things, correct as they are, is going to mitigate the conflicts surrounding behavior that is inconsistent with the above principles.

Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Just gonna say that ArbCom should not accept cases on the basis of the Dear Leader giving his blessing. I get that some may be tempted to see a case because Eric's name is attached to it, but he actually seemed to be nicer than usual in this instance. The only thing I see of particular concern that might need to be addressed is the interaction between SPECIFICO and Carolmoore. Given the nature of their interactions in the Austrian economics arbitration case, there may be a need for a more general restriction, such as an interaction ban. ArbCom does not really need to take a case to do that and it doesn't even really need to go to ArbCom should that be considered necessary. Perhaps people can take it here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Newyorkbrad and everyone Formulating one's points in such a discussion will not always be easy; for example, how does one best discuss making Wikipedia more appealing to "female editors" without crossing the line into role-ascription or gender stereotyping?

This very issue came up Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender_gap_task_force/Archive_3#Scope. Notably the two editors SPECIFICO and TwoKindsofPork raised it. I hope I put their minds at rest.

It seems to me that the idea of closing (or narrowing) the gender gap is one that, like wikt:motherhood and apple pie₂, everyone agrees to. And in a general way, of course, so they should.

However when one wants to discuss proposed actions it is important to establish the parameters, and for this we need a basis in evidence. And we need to be very careful. Example: one editor extrapolated from general Internet research "So women online place more importance than men on spending time with people congenial to them" however research on Wikipedia editing shows that women are more likely to edit contentious articles than men.

In an environment where these sorts of statements are being made ab initio they are likely to be challenged. These challenges come from a number of quarters, and while Eric's are abrupt and abrasive in what I understand is his normal manner (which does not mean they are invalid), the majority seem to be fairly phrased objections.

Given also that there seems to be an assumption that there will be a gendered divide (including I believe at least two women miscast as men, as they were seen as opposing a female editor's statements) it is not surprising that conflict flares from time to time.

I have asked (here) that: If someone is being disruptive, please follow one of the usual procedures so I suppose I must take some responsibility for the ANI and this request, but I did add a rider my preferred procedure is to ignore disruption, thus making it non-disruptive, and I believe this is by far the best way forward thought this prickly thicket.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC).

Statement by Montanabw[edit]

• Arbs: Please vote to decline—I beg you: Gender issues on wikipedia are a legitimate concern, but this is neither the time, the place, nor the right parties. This does not excuse anyone who may have exhibited poor behavior, but such things should be handled on a case by case basis. Discussions at the GGTF page involving the named parties are mostly just (sometimes heated) banter about ideas and any action at this time is premature. Worse yet, it could create a "bad facts make bad law" scenario. Montanabw^(talk) 22:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Casliber, yeah. Crap , why did you guys accept this one? Why this circus? I really wish that ArbCom had not chosen this particular case to use as a tool to look into gender gap and systemic bias issues. It's basically got the potential for a "bad facts make bad law" situation. Many if not all of the named parties asked you not to.

I tried to join the GGTF, only to find it is nothing but a one-woman dramafest led by a person who doesn't understand wikipedia culture, policies, guidelines or even modern feminism, save for a rather specific area, and appears to confuse criticism as either a personal attack with gender based incivility. I for one tried commenting there and was promptly accused of being a man! (I deliberately chose a gender neutral name on wiki to avoid hassles, and while do not go out of my way to disclose my gender on-wiki, yes, I am a woman and what's more I am a feminist woman who has worked IRL on women's issues since the 1980s)

Here, a bunch of people just got all upset when Corbett did his usual rude Corbett thing, but used a bad word that is worse to American ears than UK ones. Then, once he had been baited into engaging, the trolls appeared and egged him on. They won't be a party to this case and will skate scott free.

The GGTF is doing zilch to actually address real issues. If you want to look at the real issues, they are legion and I don't think any of the named parties are amongst the worst offenders. Instead of this tempest in a teapot, arbcom should look at the REAL trolling and massive problems besetting articles such as Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn. That's the stuff that is running off women. The abuse of the consensus model and the bullying of content contributors who are sincerely trying to improve articles is the actual problem, not that Corbett said a rude thing again. Sheesh. Montanabw^(talk) 04:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anne Delong[edit]

• I have been only an occasional contributor at the Gender Gap task force, but each time I have visited I have observed that whenever a new thread is started which suggests some kind of positive action or direction to be taken by the task force, the thread is almost immediately flooded with discussions and questions about more general or peripherally related topics, complaints, disparaging comments, repetition of arguments from other threads, etc., rather than constructive suggestions. While these posts are mostly couched in civil language, the result has been that in many cases the thread was derailed and no progress could be made in working toward consensus on the actual threaded topic. I have no idea what this arbitration can or should do about this, but it seems that the task force has been rendered ineffective for as long as the problem persists. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by Cla68[edit]

While we're here, even if this case is declined the ArbCom can do its part to help with the GenderGap project. ArbCom governs en.wp's administrator selection process, correct? I suggest that ArbCom mandate that self-identifying female RfA candidates be considered as successfully passing the RfA with a 50% approval rate as opposed to the 65% rate that is currently used. This will help gain more female administrators on the project as the RfA, the way it currently operates, is such an unfair shark tank. No, I'm not joking or trolling. Cla68 (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made a proposal here. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite[edit]

There are POV warriors on both sides of this issue. If one side believes their "enemies" (and I don't use that term lightly) are going to be routed and that they themselves will escape unscathed if this issue goes through a full fact-finding process, they are sadly mistaken. I myself believe this entire "WikiProject" should probably be disbanded and moved off-wiki as inherently disruptive. Their mission is noble, their tactics and rhetoric is not. Carrite (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CLA. Really, really terrible idea. Carrite (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush[edit]

I'd promised myself to stay out of this but the latest events have tipped me over the edge. For those arbs who expressed a willingness to be persuaded, please note this current ANI thread, which has turned into something of a Gender Gap Task Force pile-on probably because of this notification by an involved party. Please also note that the GGTF, which is swamped by Carolmooredc commentary, is censoring perfectly valid discussion, most recently by hatting and then, when challenged, rapidly archiving this thread. You'll note that my initial challenge there was polite enough; my response to Carolmooredc's mostly off-topic personalisation was, alas, not.

There is something rotten in the state of Denmark and freedom to discuss is being stifled by process. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolmooredc. You can't stop forum shopping the same comments at numerous venues, can you? It;s like the written version of verbal diarrhoea, sprayed everywhere, irritating, usually unwanted and, frankly, tedious. My views on the existence or otherwise of the GGTF are not relevant here and I won't be commenting in those terms. The problem here is behavioural. Yours, in particular because all you ever seem to do is try to use Wikipedia processes to censor other people and to rewrite your own history. You've been censured before but it seems to me that a review of the behaviour of yourself and perhaps others may be in order. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carolmooredc, re: this. You've misunderstood me, again. I'm looking at filing a case about your behaviour generally (latest example here, which seems absurd to me). Nothing directly related to the GGTF, although obviously you have been active in matters relating to that of late and so your behaviour wrt that might be a part of the whole. I'm not sure whether ArbCom would prefer to roll all this up or not but my intention was a separate case, which will inevitably also put me and numerous other people under the spotlight. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@Robert McClenon, I've made the grand total of nine edits to WT:GGTF and there will be a few others knocking around elsewhere. I'm not a major player in this. Feel free to add me as a party but don't expect that I'll bother responding unless the Committee decide to roll up as per my message above. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by J3Mrs[edit]

Carolmooredc conflates criticism of opinions or ideas expressed on the project page with personal attacks. As such she is proving to be a net negative by commenting on everything and drowning out more reasonable and measured voices. Until she learns the difference between such criticism and what constitutes a personal attack, nothing will improve. Some editors on that page who see incivility in others do not see it in themselves generating more drama for nil improvement to the encyclopedia. Stifling dissent is not the way to go and neither is looking for anti-feminist bias in every comment or criticism. Bad ideas are just that. J3Mrs (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days ago Eric Corbett and a female collaborator gained yet another Good Article credit. Cas Liber's idea of examining the contributions of others seems eminently reasonable to me. Arbcom needs to know exactly what editors do to improve the encyclopedia as against peddling agendas and telling other editors what to do. Editors with fewer than 50% contributions to article space, some with fewer than 30% seem to be here to create a lot of fuss, mostly from poking their noses into other editors's affairs and peddling self righteousness while considering themselves to be civil. J3Mrs (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth reading the extraordinary rumour-mongering and unsubstantiated allegations started by Carolmooredc on my talk page. J3Mrs (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mark Miller[edit]

The situation is not at all clear as to who is really in the absolute wrong. Almost every one of the directly involved parties have not acted well but the serious question is...is this really about the Gender Gap Task Force or is this really just a personal conflict between editors? I see a lot of editors (very well meaning editors) stating that one is trying to get their opposition removed. I have not actually seen any real proof of that and in fact have seen some rather good explanations about how some are forgetting that just being brought up or being involved at ANI does not mean they started the threads or complaints to receive that criticism.

Newyorkbrad is correct that being able to discuss the gender issue and "why women are drastically underrepresented among our editors, and what can or should be done about it" is important, but...is that what Arbcom is for? More important to me is that the projects be allowed to have these discussions without outside intervention to disrupt that discussion on purpose and that is what I believe is happening and...generally by the same editors over and over. If the request is taken...that is what I think is a major issue. Are these projects being purposely derailed by their critics? I think it is cool to criticize...but actively undermining the projects on their talk pages just because your don't like the entire idea or find is useless is very disturbing.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs, thanks for your time and opinion but you may be incorrect about this being "one AN/I". At minimum we could be looking at about three ANI requests.

This one is the latest: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Interaction ban between Carolmooredc and Sitush proposed This thread has 7 sections. 3 have been closed and 4 remain open. This is the case that the OP felt should include user Sitush. The common theme appears to Eric Corbet in a lot of this, as well as Carol.

Another relevant thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting uninvolved admin as it involves Eric again disrupting a discussion about civility on Dennis Brown's talk page. This was closed as "NOTHING USEFUL IS TO COME OF THIS" and I do believe this is directly related to the same case not just because it involves the usual suspects but is again the editor purposely disrupting and undermining the discussion.

Of course the main thread of this complaint is: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption of Wikiproject which was closed and archived and located here (If the direct link does not work).

I cannot tell you what to think or that you must agree with my assessment here but I do ask that you take a closer look and see if any of the above has merit for further attention. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cas Liber[edit]

If this case is accepted, I challenge all arbs to examine the last 1000 contributions of all editors under scrutiny and quantify how much is encyclopedia-building and how much is directly disruptive, divisive, adversarial or plain non-productive, before making assumptions or inferences. If not then I might have to at the workshop myself, though my time is limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 11:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess[edit]

All the GGTF proposals that the accused incivil parties in this case have disrupted would've never actually passed as any type of Wikipedia proposal. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 13:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't try to fix the gender gap problem yourselves, Arbcom, you'll just end up failing. This'll be a horrible mess of a case if they even try to enforce anything other than sanctions on the users involves.

ArbCom elections are coming up, by the way, so I hope ArbCom will reflect what the community wants on this issue. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 00:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iselilja[edit]

Since it now seems the case will be accepted

• I will request that Cla68 is added as party for what I perceive to be trolling at the expence of the Gender Gap task force. On 10 September, he opened a RfC at the RfA talk page about lowering the bar for adminship for women to 50% support. He presented this in the headline as a proposal from the Gender Gap task force (headline later changed by me), even he had not participated in that project and his proposal had not been discussed there. He also referred to this as a GGTF proposal at Jimmy Wales’s talk page. His proposal was of course bound to fail and I don’t think it was put forward in good faith, but rather as an attempt to ridicule and disgrace the GGTF project. Several experienced editors/administrators shared my impression that the proposal was insincere (See previous link). Ridiculing by men is a very old and persistent problem for those who raise concern about women’s position.
• Sadly, I also believe Sitush should be added. He is normally a very fine editor, but something went very wrong in his interation with Carol. He participated at the Gender Gap page at a late stage of this conflict. While he was in conflict with Carol and indicated that he was preparing an ArbCom case against her, he at the same time prepared a BLP on her in his userspace. I think it should go without saying that preparing an ArbCom case against a person and writing a BLP on the very same person is a horrible idea. Unfortunately, based on several comments it seems many in the community don’t see it this way and rather blame Carol for getting upset with Sitush’s behaviour. A finding on this from ArbCom would be helpful and the Carol/Sitush internaction will probably be part of the case anyway. This diff shows some of the problems, note particular the last paragraph which shows how he mixed ArbCom/BLP preparations and at least one of his idea for the BLP would have constituted a clear BLP violation.
• Iselilja (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Black Kite[edit]

Well, good luck with this one, folks. And I hope all the Arbs accepting this will take account of CasLiber's comment above and straight away act on his advice - the important point is who out of the parties here is here to build an encyclopedia, and who is here to push their own agendas? Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Dennis Brown[edit]

Just to echo Casliber and Black Kite here. You can tell more about motivation by a history than how sweet someone's words are. That said, I'm not sure how Arb can really look into anything except behavior, as the gender gap issue and community discussions about it (in a general sense) seems too broad a topic to "fix". Dennis 23:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. To sync the topic bans and discretionary sanctions, and to broaden the scope of the discretionary sanctions. Please copy-edit as necessary,  Roger Davies ^talk 01:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. This should have been done months ago --Guerillero | My Talk 02:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. I already made my argument for this over at ARCA. Courcelles 02:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Moved the "broadly construed" language out to cover all three clauses. Courcelles 02:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   For discussion, I'm not entirely sure clause iii actually adds much not covered under i and ii, but no harm in making it explicit, either, I guess. Courcelles 02:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. Yes, the language should be the same DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. LFaraone 05:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Euryalus (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yes, the scopes of topic bans and sanctions in a case this large, needs to be standardized, and this does it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. I would prefer it if the availability of sanctions language (see discussion below) were retained, even if it is redundantly, to the extent that I am not comfortable supporting without it. However I do not oppose the substantive part of the motion and so will not stand in the way of it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (GGTF)[edit]

• Just in case anyone is wondering where the "The availability of sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion on these pages, but sanctions should be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts the discussion." from the original remedy has gone, it's since been incorporated into the DS procedural main page (first sentence of Guidance for editors).  Roger Davies ^talk 12:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Given this is largely an internal-facing remedy, rather than one likely to be invoked for article content, wouldn't be a bad idea to state it explicitly here, even redundantly. Courcelles 17:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Community comments (GGTF)[edit]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Archived --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 01:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As proposer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. LFaraone 05:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. This likely won't pass, but a very clear signal needs to be sent that [9] is totally unacceptable. I see way too much battleground/fighty conduct in this user, of which that diff is the shining example. His behaviour hasn't changed since the GGTF case, the same stuff the FoF commented on is still being done. So, even though I am afraid this motion is consigned to failure, I must land here, as I do think it is necessary. I'm a little disappointed the opposes seem to be more related to the process, rather than opposition to the end result. We've always retained full jurisdiction of all prior matters we've heard, this is even enshrined in the ArbPol. Courcelles 18:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   To be fair, the oppose votes are not merely related to the process, in my opinion. Taking mine, for instance, I'm following policy as I understand it and opposing on principle. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. ArbCom has historically not acted ex officio, but rather we have generally waited for someone to seize the committee before acting, unless private information is involved. I don't think we should be changing our approach here. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Salvio. Two Kinds of Pork's behaviour is an egregious breach of his topic ban, and is not at all conducive to improving the encyclopaedia, but equally it is behaviour the community is perfectly capable of dealing with and is dealing with. In the absence of private information the community is not party to (and there is none at the present time) or a request from the community to handle this, we as a Committee have not standing to act. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Salvio and Thryduulf. The behavior needs to be dealt with, but the community should be handling it, not us. Dougweller (talk) 11:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per TParis. Egregious topic ban breach is right, but already addressed by the month-long ban. A repeat performance would presumably lead to a well-deserved and longer block. But no pressing need for committee involvement when the ban breach and offensive conduct have already been addressed. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per the above,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. While we have jurisdiction over all previous cases, we also let the community normally enforce the case results, unless they bring it to us. I'd rather have them try working on it first, and then if they can't, and it's brought to us, we can look into it. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. There is no need of us yet. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. This has already been addressed by the community. While I certainly agree that the comment was egregiously unacceptable, I don't see any need for us to intervene further. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

Recuse

Discussion by arbitrators (TKOP)[edit]

Community comments (TKOP)[edit]

All editors of this page are reminded to be calm, civil and assume good faith when making comments. Personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, including any allegation not supported by evidence, are not permitted and will be removed by an arbitrator or clerk. Editors are warned that arbitrators and clerks may ban them from arbitration pages or block them to enforce this without further warning.

• He's blocked for a month. Why not let that stand and see what happens afterwards?--v/r - TP 07:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad faith nomination which as I have alluded to is the second time that GorillaWarfare has plead ignorance about arb processes. I also fail to see any request by her on any talkpage to have TKOP notified by the clerks or otherwise. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also point out that apparently the box you know the big pink one in case you missed it states " not related to any existing case or request" is on this page, this is related to both so the venue is incorrect as well it would seem. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What is with assuming Gorilla Warfare is in bad faith just because she disagrees with you or others? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Alanscottwalker well for one it isn't bad faith it's a consideration (which could be wrong) of a couple of behaviors that seem to show her judgement may not be unbiased in this. I can dig up diffs for this on why I may think so if you would like. Let's consider this section closed by Gorilla Warfare | Not SPI and this [This seems more suited to WP:SPI. Sockpuppet investigations]. Now lets Look at this comment of mine This is the comment I received from an administrator], the response to that comment which only reffered to my instructions, and I let the person looking at the link decide the rationale. It wasn't my words it was GorillaWarfares. The response was [| I was suggesting you take this to SPI. Implying that comment was endorsing a CU is misleading, I don't recall ever once saying or implying GW wanted a checkuser, I stated this was the response I got from an administrator. So after that I have to explain to her [[10]] how SPI in arb cases work. Could be a human error, maybe. Then we have an attempt to sneak a motion past and not even give the person involved the notice and her excuse was [| Roger notified before I asked another arb, the clerks were asked to do it, and a clerk was able to respond]> Now her edits to propose the motion was at | 21:37 and we go all the way to [| 01:17] with 11 intervening edits to various pages although non curiously to another arb page or clerk page but according to her comment she just didn't time to ask to post it in between time and User:Roger Davies did it at 00:40. Comments such as [| The rest of the Committee can outvote me, if I am indeed an incompetent woman myself] when nothing I have ever said to her or indeed any woman has ever in my life. I've supplied several statements to show that I am not sexist but when someone openly admits [I believe in the pretty mind-blowing idea that women should have equal rights] which was an assumption of massive bad faith and showed her judgement is flawed because at no point at any time did Sitush or myself say anything close to her attacks on us. What else would I believe in this. There's a few more diffs but this help explain a little? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying she is biased because she is a feminist? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is saying she is biased because of the bad faith assumptions she has made which show that she has not acted impartially. Whether she could be or not isn't a matter for us to presume as her statement clearly shows she considers HIAB to be a sexist and HIAB could not expect a fair judgement from her any longer. Are you intentionally misrepresenting what he said to made an accusation of sexism that is unsupported? That said, I think GorillaWarfare actually did show she was impartial in the GGTF Arbitration case.--v/r - TP 00:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (Note: somewhat involved party, in the sense that I've commented on TKOP's interactions, and their response to one of my comments is actually a diff in the rationale for the motion. Not sure if that counts, but it seems worth noting just in case): I fully endorse this motion. There are essentially two possible ways to understand TKOP's recent behaviour around gender discussions and their response to the initial, one-month block; either they're simply trolling, at this point, in which case this is nothing more than disruption to prove a point and can't be expected to end when their existing block does, or they genuinely do not understand how a discussion about an experimental effort to help solve the gender gap relates to gender - in which case this is a competence issue. My money is on the former. Ironholds (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with TP. This seems like an over-reaction but time will tell. - Sitush (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• TKOP shouldn't be site-banned, as the 1-month block is enough. IMHO, his talkpage privillages should be restored. GoodDay (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• That was not only a blatant violation of the topic ban, it was an absolutely outrageous comment, and I can't imagine somebody using white supremacy in that example with an intent to do anything other than cause outrage. The one-month block is well deserved, and I reject the notion that either Keilana or GW are involved because of their participation on the gendergap list (the idea that discussing Wikipedia's much-discussed problem with attracting women editors would disqualify an admin from blocking for a comment that compared a women-only space to white supremacist website is as absurd as the example itself; it looks like a straightforward attempt to divert attention onto the admins who acted and away from the comment). Since the siteban is not going to pass, a middle ground could be for ArbCom to mandate a one-year block for any future violations or to mandate that the next blocking admin bring the matter to ARCA, where the committee can consider a siteban. While I certainly my have concerns about he way Lightbreather interacts with other editors, TKOP is going to need to drastically change his approach if he is to remain a part of this community for much longer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  No can do, HJ. Sure, we have a gender problem, yes, AC has said said solving it is important, and yes, a user compared solving it to being a neo-nazi, but the important thing here is that you bring reports of statements like that to ArbCom in triplicate on form 38-6/b. How do you expect anything to be done without the report being on a good ol' 38-6? Ironholds (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  "All editors of this page are reminded to be calm, civil and assume good faith when making comments."--v/r - TP 18:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by Lightbreather (talk) at 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Interactions at GGTF arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [11] (diff of notification of this thread on Hell in a Bucket's talk page)

Information about amendment request

• Remedies
• Hell in a Bucket and Lightbreather interaction banned

ARCA endorses the suggested interaction ban between Hell in a Bucket and Lightbreather (originally proposed as a voluntary Iban by Lightbreather on 16 december 2014).

Statement by Lightbreather 2[edit]

Following the GGTF ArbCom case, I proposed an Iban between Hell in a Bucket and myself.[12] He declined. I have left the offer open on my talk page,[13] without reply. However, today, Hell in a Bucket again called me a liar,[14] as he has in the past, without evidence. He also regularly belittles my efforts to create women's spaces to help address the gender gap.

Could an admin please place this Iban? Lightbreather (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: The link you gave shows that I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I maintain that I legitimately edited while logged out, but Mike V disagreed. That doesn't mean that I "lied" anymore than Mike V "lied" (he didn't) for coming to a different conclusion about my reason for editing while logged out. Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare and Roger Davies: You were involved[15][16] in the discussion where I originally proposed this.[17] I don't think this is an unreasonable request, do you? Lightbreather (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links to vitriole Hell in a Bucket has spewed at or about me since the close of the GGTF Arbcom:

1. 10 Jan 2015 [18] Oppose- if you feel like you need said safe haven make a feminist wikipedia, let the grown up women stay where they should be (en.wiki) and work with the rest of the community like the adults they are. (Direct response to an IdeaLab project I have proposed related to the GENDER GAP)
2. 1 Feb 2015 [19] Delete blatantly discriminative drivel. (1st comment about an MFD re my user space that is related to my IdeaLab proposal to help with the GENDER GAP)
3. 1 Feb 2015 [20] And this is precisely why I don't take shit like this serious.... (2nd comment about an MFD re my user space that is related to my IdeaLab proposal to help with the GENDER GAP)
4. 1 Feb 2015 [21] I think that part of this scenario is [Lightbreather] is part of the problem, get caught in lies, manipulation and various other activites and yes you are likely to garner a following. (3rd comment about an MFD re my user space that is related to my IdeaLab proposal to help with the GENDER GAP)
5. 18 Dec 2014 [22] Ok so upon release from her block aside from loudly arguing she lied about socking...
6. 18 Dec 2014 [23] [an Iban] wouldn't have stopped the spi or the lies ... everyone on this site knows you lied about editing logged out, no admin in their right mind will take a claim like that seriously. (In an ANI HIAB started about me)
7. 13 Dec 2014 [24] ... let [Lightbreather] weave her path of destruction until people see the real person behind the proclaimed motives.
8. 11 Dec 2014 [25] (Labels my actions lies.)
9. 13 Dec 2014 [26] (592 words and not one diff! In reply to a simple question by GorillaWarfare[27])
10. 1 Feb 2015 [28] I always follow the policy once a liar always a liar and that's a consequence of [Lightbreather's] deception (said yesterday, and what brought me here)

The allegations of lies and not AGF without evidence (making allegations against other editors or casting aspersions) really bothers me, as well as the contempt he shows (discussion of problems and issues) for my efforts to create welcoming spaces for women to improve the GENDER GAP. Lightbreather (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Two kinds of pork: 200 words of your spin on the situation, no diffs. Also, as of today almost 48% (it's been higher) of my edits are to content, compared to your 26%. These rumors that besmirch my honesty and productivity really should stop. Lightbreather (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: Why can't the two of you just avoid each other, as suggested by GW last year? The thing is, I believe that I have been avoiding him, but I don't think he's been avoiding me. In addition to the numbered list of comments he's made to or about me, did you catch the one that I gave in my first paragraph[29] (yesterday, and why I came here) where he says of me I always follow the policy once a liar always a liar and that's a consequence of [Lightbreather's] deception? The spreading around his opinion about me, that he thinks I'm a liar, and his repeated attacks of my attempts to create a women-only space to help (I hope) narrow the WP gender gap... These things are getting tiresome and they're against the GGTF ArbCom principles. Lightbreather (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Karanacs: I think you missed the diff in my first paragraph. Since others seem to have missed it, too, I have added it to the numbered list. Lightbreather (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: I. Did. NOT. Lie. Please stop calling me a liar. Lightbreather (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: When I first proposed a volunteer Iban between myself and HIAB, back in December, on my talk page, you said:

We could add a FOF and remedy to that via a request at WP:ARCA, or an IBAN could be handled at WP:AE under the FFTF discretionary sanctions.

That is why I came here.

@GorillaWarfare: Could you please comment? You were in that discussion, too, as was HIAB, though he did not agree to the proposal. Lightbreather (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: The only other forum where I've asked for an Iban between myself and HIAB was my own talk page, in December, and HIAB was involved in the discussion. When he declined, I let it drop until his recent comments, which are against the GGTF ArbCom principles of Fair criticism, Making allegations against other editors, and Discussion of problems and issues.

@Gaijin42: When I said what I said about WP:CHK, I meant that I expected that I would get to talk privately with a CU (which I tried to do, but it never happened) and explain exactly why I was editing logged out. I was stalked on- and off-wiki last year, so yes, I was editing logged out for privacy. I was busted ultimately because apparently IP editors aren't supposed to be involved in "discussions internal to the project." (I never found out - did any of the other dozen or so IP editors involved in that discussion get blocked for socking?) That only leaves the joe job after the fact, and that wasn't me. (HIAB seems to think that since my block was extended for it, that "proves" it was me, and for me to deny it is a lie.)

Maybe this will help. On 3 June 2010, HIAB was blocked for personal attacks. HIAB claimed, I'm blocked for being direct and open.[30] Is he a liar? Should I start following him around to various talk pages and tell people he's a liar? Lightbreather (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for HIAB's opposition to my GGTF-related proposals, I don't object to his opposition - lot's of people are opposed to it - but I don't like the trash talk, which may be generally accepted on Wikipedia, but it's against the ArbCom GGTF principles, so I'd like him to knock it off. Lightbreather (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: IBAN, which LB has consistently tried to obtain... There are only two other editors that I have sought an Iban for. The first we observed a successful, voluntary two-way ban for a while, but she quit editing months ago. The other, which I wanted as a one-way, was never enacted. This one, which I am volunteering for, is a two-way, and the only other forum where I've proposed it was my own talk page, where HIAB declined.

Also, would you describe let the grown up women stay where they should be, blatantly discriminative drivel, and I don't take shit like this serious as "valid criticism" (especially under the GGTF ArbCom principles)? Lightbreather (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: You link to two admin-help requests for removal of content involving Eric Corbett in your own evidence Where? I don't see that here. Lightbreather (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Anne's criticism was on her page, in a discussion that I started with her, and its tone was respectful and polite, even if it expressed opposition to my proposal. Compare that to HIAB's comments above. Also, did you know that your last reply to me had at least a dozen direct uses of "you" or "your." Perhaps that helps your mission. However, what you do and what I do off-wiki have no place here. Lightbreather (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: Re your question, all of my evidence is related to the GGTF.

• Diffs 1-4 are about my efforts to create a space to help (I hope) close the gender gap.
• Diffs 7-9 were while I was blocked for editing while logged out on the GGTF ArbCom PD talk page (it was ruled an abuse of multiple accounts). It was Hell in a Bucket who outed information about me and called for an SPI on the ArbCom PD talk page."[31] (Info was later revdeled and the discussion habbed.)
• Diffs 5-6 were immediately after my block, when HIAB took me to ANI because I started an SPI against EChastain,[32] who I am sure formerly edited as Sue Rangell (and at least one admin agrees[33]).
• Diff 10 is from one of two SPIs that have been started against me since my original block: both started by IP editors, and both closed without action. Since my original block was a consequence of my participation in the GGTF ArbCom PD discussion, and since it was HIAB who called for it, I think this last "liar" comment of his is related. I am one of the few editors actively working to try to close the gender gap, and although HIAB may oppose me, I don't think it helps to close the gap when he insists on following around and besmirching me.

--Lightbreather (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: "Vexatious" means "causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry." Which editor is more vexatious? The one who follows WP protocol re a conduct dispute, or the one who WP:HOUNDS? I am sorry if the former is more vexatious to those who must evaluate the complaint, but the hounding became vexatious enough for me that I am seeking a remedy. (Note that I cite policy while you cite essays.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EChastain: I didn't quote GorillaWarfare. Do you mean that I placed a confusing diff?

Also, with the exception of Karanacs and Hawkeye7, all of the editors who've given statements here were active between Jan 27 and Feb 2: You, TKOP, Gaijin, and Sitush at AE, ANI, and ARCA; HIAB at ARCA and SPI; me at AE, ARCA, and SPI. Lightbreather (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ping=anyone who cares: Personal info I deleted from my user page early on in my WP editing career because I realized how hostile this place is. I never dreamed that personal info that was on my page for a matter of a few weeks at the most would be sought out by someone on a mission at some future date to share with a group. Why Hell in a Bucket chose to point it out to a couple dozen people at an ArbCom? I'm past caring - I have since had it permanently revdeled,[34] - but I sure would like an Iban so he doesn't keep pestering me. Lightbreather (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re modus operandi of EChastain and HIAB: [35][36][37][38][39][40]

@Euryalus: I came here rather than ANI for the reason I gave earlier. When I first proposed a volunteer Iban between myself and HIAB, back in December, on my talk page, Roger Davies advised: We could add a FOF and remedy to that via a request at WP:ARCA, or an IBAN could be handled at WP:AE under the FFTF discretionary sanctions. --Lightbreather (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Salvio giuliano, and Thryduulf: Between February 1, 2014, and January 31, 2015, HIAB started 13 discussions at ANI, and I started 12. If that is the measure, I'd say he is every bit as "vexatious" as I. I would be accept, albeit begrudgingly, being topic banned from administrative noticeboards, as Salvio has suggested, if HIAB is also topic banned from administrative noticeboards, although can we give the ban a length? Say six months? Lightbreather (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Can you clarify? Do you propose that I would need to get permission to go to WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:NORN, WP:RSN, and so on? As I just suggested, I am open to being banned - say for six months - from ANI, as Salvio suggested, if HIAB is banned, too (based on the evidence that he used that forum at least as often as I). Lightbreather (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about this, but re-discovered it while counting up our activity at ANI in the past year, have all the arbitrators considered/remembered that HIAB was warned in the Banning Policy case last fall?

Hell in a Bucket is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.

Now I will try to just watch the end of this unfold, unless an arbitrator pings me. I will be entertaining house guests for the next 24 to 36 hours. Lightbreather (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: I collected that info manually this a.m. My granddaughters are having lunch and then they'll nap. I'll be able to give you more info from the last six months then. Lightbreather (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: For the six months from 8/6/14 through 2/6/15 I count:

HIAB: ANI, 7; AE, 0; ARCA, 0; SPI, 13 - for a total of 20.

LB: ANI, 4; AE, 1; ARCA, 1; SPI, 2 - for a total of 8.

If I'm a "vexatious litigant" (and I don't buy that I am), then it appears to me that HIAB is also a "vexatious litigant."

May I ask, is it cool to be going to the arbitrators' talk pages to post the same appeal re a case here? Today, HIAB has posted the same appeal[41] on your talk page and the talk pages of @DGG, Dougweller, Courcelles, Guerillero, AGK, Euryalus, and Thryduulf:.

I hardly think it matters; we're none of us likely to ignore the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And can you clarify, isn't some of what he brought up in that appeal - references to off-wiki activity - forbidden in these processes? (Or am I mistaken?) --Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Karanacs: You say you went back to Sept., but you have two items from May 2014 listed for me. Did you mean to include those? Lightbreather (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram, Karanacs, NE Ent, and Sitush: Getting ready to call it a night, but since it was brought up in several places here, the result of the Kaffeekltach MfD was page kept,[42] and WMF Legal says it does not violate the non discrimination policy.[43] Lightbreather (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: I included you in the ping because you linked to it in your comment here on Feb. 3.[44] Lightbreather (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: This has been dragging on for a while, and maybe I've missed or forgotten something, but where did I ignore specific advice about how to proceed?

@Roger Davies: I am so sorry if I seemed to ignore you. I started this in good faith based on what you said on my talk page on 17 Dec 2014.[45] The advice you posted on 18 Dec was on my talk page, too, but it was in reply to Hell in a Bucket.[46] And the statement you made here on 2 Feb was in reply to Thryduulf and didn't ping me or include my name.[47] Honestly, if you had pinged me and said, "Lightbreather, ARCA is the wrong place for this, please take it to [board]," I would have done so. Lightbreather (talk) 00:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket (GGTF)[edit]

Any editor familiar with the Arbcom case GGTF knows that Lightbreather lied about socking and then evading her block using another sock and then lied again but begged everyone to believe her that she wasn't lying the second time although she was not honest the first time. I would note this is actually the first semi direct interaction I've had with her in some time and it was not even her but the inclusion of a SPI. I think this was my last comment other then this new SPI [[48]] that had any involvement. I think we have an editor that can not under any circumstances deal with anyone that disagrees with her POV, which is what I said here [[49]] with no suitable response. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lightbreather as you seem to have forgot here is the evidence [[50]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes we've already had this complaint [[51]]. It hasn't changed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Link 20 (not en.wiki) and as stated above she is upset I disagreed.
• Link 21 Delete as drivel or "talk nonsense."
• Link 22 Discussion with Ironholds explaining why I believe what I do. (not lightbreather)
• link 23 Still talking to Ironholds not Lightbreather
• Link 24 Asking that Lightbreather be stopped from harrassing a new user in contravention of WP:BITE with a second SPI although there was zero reason to do so. (on someone else's talk page no less)
• Link 25 is stating the same thing several admin and one former arb stated about honesty.
• Link 26 and 27 is a discussion regarding the use of WP:ROPE and not a problem except again it doesn't agree with LB preferred view.
• Link 28 a response to another editor who had stated concerns and I wanted to clarify again not with Lightbreather. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think total out of that there is one that is directly addressed to Lightbreather 00:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:Lightbreather, The best way to stop those descriptions is to quit acting in that manner. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Thryduulf the evidence is in the SPI, at length. Lightbreather asks for diffs each time it's mentioned. The supporting diffs including endorsement byan admin and former arb [[52]], another admin [[53]], another admin endorsing the spi [[54]], and another [[55]] after seeing more diffs. Lightbreather did a great job putting it all together and you can tell that this is the result of considered rationales and not "aspersions" My best timeline I laid out here [[56]] It's also important to note that the conversation on her MFD was in direct replies to concerns by Ironholds and the SPI, both had valid reasons to mention those things as they had direct relevance to the situation, ie a sock puppet investigation with a user with a history of evasion, and a discussion about deletion which is common at mfd's and not directed to or in conversation with Lightbreather. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Euryalus I have done exactly what you just stated, I have avoided Lightbreather. I have commented on 2 SPI's opened regarding LB as it was relevant to that occasion, The other was commenting on a WMF violation in her userpage pledge group that is highly discriminatory. After being engaged by another editor I explained why I took the delete rationale. None of this engaged Lightbreather in anyway, I repeat I did not ping her, I mentioned her indirectly and stated a suspicion of another instance of puppetry or oppositoin research in a retort to that same user when discussing the issue further. Ironholds didn't break decorum and neither did I. I also do not wish to relitigate teh case either but I had to as again she accused me of aspersions and then again when arb User:Thryduulf stated TKP could be harassing her by not providing links. A child can see all she is doing with that is misdirecting the issue at hand and trying to make people see the picture she wants. This user is bludgeoning her perceived opponents with that arbcom case or at least trying very hard to. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Lightbreather, I've sufficiently shown you have lied. There was an open SPI and it's routine when noting checkuser requests that a history of deception is there when getting that approved and it was approved. So there again as I mentioned before me not talking to you or having an interaction ban would not resolve the behaviors that you have done, not me, you. I didn't force you to sock and lie about it, I didn't start the SPI's. I commented at them once defending you and then when more compelling evidence came forward and seeing the wisdom of getting Darknipples and Felsec cleared of a cloud suggested it was good idea to checkuser. That's it, it was your reputation and not mine you sullied with your actions only you can take credit for that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Lightbreather, I don't need to besmirch you, as often is the case you did that yourself through deception, forum shoppiong and as stated by several here being vexatious in general. Heck if the committee thinks I'm the problem then I will sit back and eat my popcorn while you weave your path of destruction. I believe you are the perfect example of WP:COMPETENCE, it's clear you can't or won't understand why your behavior is problematic and you insist that everyone who disagrees is wrong and everyone that agrees is helpful, one day very very soon and it's already happening, everyone will be able to see the bull. It's always been your choice how to proceed, you can spend the small remaining good faith capital you have by making meaningless and trivial requests here and elsewhere or you can modify the message to something that is less problematic. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Lightbreather you are again not telling the truth. Zero outing was ever done by me, if you'd like to cite the section I violated by all means. I used publicly provided info, provided by you to show that evidence. You outed yourself, you are again getting mad and upset at me for your actions. You're right this was temporarily revdel'd because as your modus operandi shows you are not forthcoming with the truth. User:PhilKnight reverted himself when he was made aware of the entire facts, you can see the conversation here [[57]]. Before you get too wound up, please also see [[58]] which can easily show that I oppose hiding inconvienant facts with most things and not just you. Also the attempts to invoke my block log is cute, the last time I was blocked was almost 5 years ago and for [[59]] the word fuck, which if you haven't noticed I still say that word here so your relevance to this is a great strawman argument and a complete non sequitor, also please note in the section above where that same admin User:Sandstein is being taken to task for being block happy. The relevant quote is by Roger Davies 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC). The only person guilty of outing is ironically you when you outed Sue Rangell in your chase after Echaistan see [[60]] and then the follow up warning from our current arb User:Euryalus found [[61]] and yet more outing before that when you attempted to connect the IP's to everybody and their brother with zero evidence other then that they lived in England. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:TParis, let's go ahead and say for one moment you are right about an Iban, and I'm 100 percent wrong about her honesty and forthrightness level. Can you reconcile [[62]] and [[63]]. I'm not sure how you can or will defend the integrity or honesty of an editor that is so willing to ignore any accountability whatsoever. Do you notice how she wails about privacy and harrassment and such and she is perfectly willing to maintain a website like this [[64]]. You can call it preventative or what you want to but it's clear from the behaviors ongoing here with the continuing lies, misrepresentations and that User:Lightbreather is not acting openly and honestly. That's the basis of why I state what I state you are certainly free to disagree, I'm sure you probably do but the wider audience, arbs included are opening their eyes. I hope to see you in that crowd one day. The lies are in front of everyone, it's up to you if you look past the smoke and mirrors she is trying to pull. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• OMG [[65]] User:Lightbreather lies again [[66]], are we getting the picture? She's got about the integrity of policeman in mexico which is to say none. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• My above reference is an allusion to the fact that Lightbreather is telling a story but she isn't being accurate about that story. This is key because it is not an outright deception but it twists it to serve a purpose, which in itself is deceptive. In essence she is trying to make it propaganda and make it look certain ways while keeping at least slightly the truth but the difference is smaller then a Bill clinton definition.. I will admit though I am considering the idea of just letting this go through without more argument just so everyone can see that removing me from this issue doesn't solve the lying, misrepresentations, forum shopping and disruption. I didn't do those things, Lightbreather did and continues to do. To address another issue I talked with TParis because I have seen restraint from him as an admin (her who knows?) and I don't expect people to agree with me, I only expect honesty and integrity. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Lightbreather are you stating it's wrong to email? I'm just curious because again the message you are sending about what you don't want to happen you are condoning by doing yourself unless it isn't in your cherry picked direction. A little consistency in the message would be nice. I don't see Echaistain or myself makign complaints here and I believ ethose you show other then one from the start of this side show are all old news. Are you making a point, is there a point and will there ever be a valid rationale behind it? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:GorillaWarfare if you can seriously think that I am sexist you are about as connected to reality as Lightbreather is, which is to say not that much. I suppose if the committee wants to think I'm the problem good on them, you don't see HiaB operating off website attack pages, you don't see me lying, you don't see me substantially misrepresenting facts or creating discriminatory pages within wikipedia mainspace or canvass 33 separate pages to promote a cause but I can clearly see that I am obviously the problem, I have clearly forced Lightbreather to behave in those manners for all this time. The amount of incompetence in that one statement is outstanding, how many emails were you sent? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:GorillaWarfare, I'm stunned you would read in my comment to that this was based on your gender which was mentioned nowhere or even alluded to, I'm judging your comment on it's merits and nothing more, I'm sorry you choose to see it from that light. I can show many comments where I support what Lightbreather is trying to accomplish but not the methods. I'd have hoped you would have seen those but because it doesn't fit the picture Lightbreather is painting I can understand why she wouldn't mention those. I would hold and expect an arb to a higher standard of research though. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Let me help you since it's clear you didn't and haven't researched this issue other then read things here. See [[67]], [[68]], [[69]], [[70]]. There's a bit more out there would you like me to find them, I have a few where I explicitly state women are equal and ridicule those who think they are superior? I would appreciate if you withdraw at least the sexism, I have many many faults sexism is not and has not ever neem ome of them. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:GorillaWarfare, what language am I allowed to use so it isn't considered sexist? I mean that seriously you object to me saying before you get too wound up[[71]], or that the antics are cute, can you refer me to anything that anywhere that states those are sexist or even close to it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:GorillaWarfare, see [| I really do encourage you to do something else more productive because I think this will be a time-sink that will end up running you off the pedia..then no one wins, not you or the encyclopedia. The best revenge you can have against someone short sighted enough to think he's superior because he is man is be a better contributor and person] is that explicit enough for you? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess if the words on the screen aren't enough I'm wasting my time. Thanks for making that crystal clear. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:GorillaWarfare, put your money where your mouth is (gender nuetral) if you really want to help the encyclopedia get better as you stated on TKOP, I would voluntarily accept an interaction ban with a smile on my face and pick flowers if the committee does what User:Salvio giuliano is suggesting in his oppose vote. User:Roger Davies on his page states you were acting in good faith and only trying to please everybody in arbcom fashion well here is the path...Lightbreather is a serious problem with forum shopping and administrative actions. Those are 75 percent of my beefs with her remove those and then remove me from the picture and boom almost insta-silence and one I'd be happy to hold because I know the encyclopedia isn't being damaged and at least you think I'm not damaging it either. Win-win. It is working with Tarc and so I see no reason it wouldn't work here Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As I recall I haven't really asked for any sanctions on User:Lightbreather since Dec. If you want to base an Administrator board ban off of number of posts rather then the times (quite a few are stale) that's obviously nothing I can do about that. I think the problems get solved with an interaction ban(more for Lightbreather peace of mind IMO) and punishing me by removing me from process such as SPI where I do have some experience and turn across quite a few in new page patrol and ANI. I likewise would contest a topic ban as asked by User:Roger Davies what I thought. I am not in any way shape or form sexist. I have taken many many pains to try and show that I am not. Comments like Gorilla Warfares last night were pretty thin on context, I was very surprised to her that "wound up", "wail" or "cute" as sexist and then when I questioned this was met with open accusations of me saying she was just an incompetent women which I nowhere said, have never said in my life and will never say. I am then referred to NPA by Roger Davies and Callanec. Where's the same standard of respect by User:GorillaWarfare? I have taken pains to show with evidence, solid evidence and no misdirection (at least not intentionally) my position but many of the comments I made where misdirected. My involvement here didn't come because of my use of an admin noticeboard, it came because Lightbreather wanted to use a hammer and do as much permanent actions she could to accomplish her vision of sanctifying wikipedia. I am about as frustrated with this as everyone else so I'm not sure what digging up diffs for ANI reasons each time I've comment there will do any good. A few were from the old arb cases which are only tangentially related to this and the rationale of inflammatory language would not apply (other then minorly depending on how far you stretch credulity liar is counted.) which as anyone can tell I didn't make any comments stating cunt, queer, nigger or anything even close and even that comment was grossly twisted to something sexist when it was a guise for the language police. I think discrimination in all forms is wrong, let there be no doubt I resent those words and without at least something tangentially showing those phrases are sexist I would appreciate a withdrawal but frankly I'm not holding my breath. It appears that the urge Lightbreather is trying to show everyone is that if she can't be there by default I shouldn't be there but the conclusion doesn't follow in my opinion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Roger Davies, User:Jehochman, and User:Dougweller double standards maybe just a little? Would you care to opine on these? I am curious on why I am apparently being singled out with blocking threats? To clarify since apparently Jehochman finds it [beneath him] to look at this these are the edits Lightbreather did to "spam" her page during the month of January, I support a motion that largely deals with teh problem and it's worth a block warning and not one single word is said about this other then when I mention how I found out about this page.

• [[72]]
• [[73]]
• [[74]]
• [[75]]
• [[76]]
• [[77]]
• [[78]]
• [[79]]
• [[80]]
• [[81]]
• [[82]]
• [[83]]
• [[84]]
• [[85]]
• [[86]]
• [[87]]
• [[88]]
• [[89]]
• [[90]]
• [[91]]
• [[92]]
• [[93]]
• [[94]]
• [[95]]
• [[96]]
• [[97]]
• [[98]]
• [[99]]
• [[100]]
• [[101]]
• [[102]]
• [[103]]
• [[104]]
• [[105]]
• [[106]]
• [[107]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:GorillaWarfare I want to revisit your sexism comment and ask you to consider a comment like this from a different view, one that you may not originally been willing to extend to me, maybe this will help. [women are equal if they choose to be, no man can take that away from them]. I can dig up the diff if you want where I explain this a little further and I explained that my opposition to groups such as this is simalar Seperate but equal they historically do not work, not aristocracies, not for racists what makes you think sexism is going to find it's solution in men and women only groups. It's nonsense (drivel) to think that all of a sudden a person can make those failed processes work to solve the issue. Another reference to a choice is akin to Rosa Parks a fine and upstanding woman that choose to be equal to the whites and defy those artificial constructs. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:GorillaWarfare I'd like you to review this [[108]], and this [[109]]. I really think you are mistaken about being sexist in any way shape or form. I can continue findings diffs, would that help you retract your statement? Is further evidence needed? I'm sure there is more out there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• In regards to 4.2 on the revised motion being discussed User:Lightbreather should not have to have the committee's approval if she is defending herself from an open thread. That's counter-productive and a large part of what her behavior that I don't like at this point would at that point be a weapon for others to use against her. If her behavior is problematic there at that time I'm sure the committee would know. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Roger Davies what in our history other then with each other or gemder /language disputes would be a reason to disqualify us from SPI, BLP or ARB, 3O, etc. It effectively silences us from almost any discussion and not all of User:Lightbreather or my contributions are completely trash. I suggest rewording to sanctions on each other and gender related matters. I think if you look at my history especially in SPI with AFC and NPP is certainly going to hamper me from my main contribution here. If you want to run me off it's a great way to do it but I would urge you to narrow that ban to something related to that because most off my participation there is very constructive. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Courcelles and User:Roger Davies, if you intend and succeed to ban me from any dispute related to ggtf (which I'm still trying to understand as my involvement has been damn near zero there) I would appreciate a finding of facts. It will not only help me understand what the committee found so inappropriate about my interactions as in my recollection I have said only positive things about women and have never denigrated or inferred they are somehow less then men so in an effort to preemptively not not make unintenional problematic edits. My interactions with Lightbreather has been problematic but I'd like to understand more about the issues being cited for this sanction. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Guerillero I was unaware that saints here previously were topic banned from gun control, blocked for sockpuppetry, blocked for evasion or operate off web attack sites who knew? I understand you want to appoint her the Eric Corbett watchdog as well which would seem that you are saying she is the sole wielder of the sword of justice for arbcom for the Eric Corbett fiasco. Good to know. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TKOP[edit]

As HIAB points out, Lightbreather's participation in the GGTF case was to say the least, deceptive. She announces she's retired, then edit's as an IP, purportedly for privacy concerns. However when HIAB speculated that the IP was LB, she suddenly un-retires to participate in the case logged in. After that, LB announces (twice) that she can't participate further one evening because she is going out to dinner and then an ip editor seemingly holding the same views takes up the mantle. Sure, it could have been someone else trying to set her up, but that would have required the villain to have the opportunity (ready to pounce when LB was away) and the means to sock from a location LB was allegedly editing. That seems rather farfetched; Occam's Razor applies.

LB wishes an IB with HIAB. I suspect that she does not like her activities being scrutinized. Yet she continues to aggressively wage a campaign against Eric Corbett. One of the principles from GGTF is that Wikipedia is not a battleground. I think given the totality of LB's recent forum shopping against her perceived opponents, she is in violation of that principle. She needs to back away from trying to get editors sanctioned and focus on editing instead.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 09:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf:Here is a brief timeline. LB announces her retirement, accompanied with a lot of noise on Wales talk page, but instead of going gently into the good night, she takes a last dig at Eric Corbett by filing evidence against him at the GGTF Arbitration page. Much like the rest of the evidence (but not all) filed by Eric's anti-fan club, it was rather flimsy and contrived -- but that's besides the point. What is the point is that Lightbreather did not have an edit to her name for a month to the day 10/14/14 through 11/14/14. Her first edit was to announce that she was making a special appearence to critizice a fellow editor and was now going to "resume" her retirement, which at least under her account last about 10 more days.

But she didn't taker her bat and ball and go home. HIAB (farily easily IIRC) sleuthed that 72.223.98.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was LB. I'm not going to bother digging up the diffs for the he said/ip said/she said, but IRC (and correct me if I'm wrong people) LB denied being the ip for quite awhile, then finally owned up to it.

Now I know LB doesn't like being called a liar, and I'm fairly certain she wouldn't want to be called a hypocrite, but if it's not hypocritcal it is at the very least ironic that after socking for the better part of two weeks (and that is just the one we know about) LB took it upon herself to perform her own SPI investigation on the prolifigate number of socks on the Arbitration page. She has serious conerns at the number of ip editors and then decides to delve even further and add the ip's geolocation information.

However barely an hour after her she comments on the ip's, she claims I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs , which we now know of course to be false. I believe she is blocked by for socking shortly after this. After this, there is some information that LB wanted removed from one of the Arbcom pages and was obviously anguished over the matter.

Now because of this anguish she might be excused for saying I'm done for tonight, and I hope that the arbitrators and others involved in the GGTF ArbCom take these possible socks/meats seriously. I am off to dinner with hubby. and just in case no one heard the first time repeats her alibi Thanks, SlimVirgin. I am just out the door to dinner with my husband. If I can't get back on tonight, I will be back tomorrow. I will think about what you and others have written here. -- But less than an hour later 69.16.147.185 removes the text that LB was protesting about. Same location as the other IP and according to other's LB's location.

I said "perahps" because while it would be easy to brush off behavior made in a moment of pique , but it is hard to excuse when between those "hubby & dinner" comments was interspersed request for another editor to do some sock hunting because LB apparently is not happy that others "are commenting anonymously, without scrutiny, on the GGTF ArbCom". Which really takes the cake because that is precisely what LB was doing during her alleged retirement.

Now if everything I just said were true, and I were in LB's shoes, I wouldn't feel too good about it. I don't think anyone want's a pound of flesh from LB. But I do suspect they want to be able to trust her. There is no need to prostrate herself, but if LB want's everyone to agree to disagree about what happened, then she will rightfully own whatever resentment some may harbor. My unsolicited advice would be to rip off the band-aid and say "I screwed up" then no one can bother her anymore about the socking part.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now some of the Arbs appear to be thinking they made a dog's dinner of this case. That you overlooked Lightbreather's behavior is unfortunate -- or perhaps you didn't. It is obvious to even an untrained eye that Arbcom is politics. This whole socking thing is just window dressing anyways. The 800 pound gorilla is some still won't get Eric Corbett out of their heads. Apparently the sanctions are working for him -- unless he is being goaded, which unfortunately seems all too easy. If Arbcom wants an easy fix, pass out some IB's between Eric against LB and KnowledgeKid77 for starters. You might be surprised how quiet this place gets if you try it.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: neither were parties, but Lighbreather was certainly involved. A) she was the first to proffer evidence and then B) participated in the proposed decision discussion via ip because she didn't want her own conduct to be scrutinized. If you asked an outsider to read the discussion on the PD talk page first, and then examined the title of the case second they would wonder what this all has to do with with the GGTF. With the exception of some raving and self destructive behavior that eventually led to their downfall, most of the discussion focused on Eric Corbett, making it a de facto Eric Corbett Civility case. That she filed evidence against him, and then attacked him from behind the shield as an ip is really outrageous bordering on disgusting. The ARCA she filed above is indicative of someone who is hounding EC. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt that a community discussion on an IB that LB has been seeking would come to any consensus and she knows that. Some have wondered here why Lightbreather filed a request here against HIAB. That's kind of like asking why did the stray cat that I fed milk a week ago keeps coming back to visit me everyday. Because it worked last time. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 18:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather: I failed to see your message to me when I posted some diffs for Thryduulf. Above are the diffs, for the both of you to review. And please don't put words in my mouth. With regards to your honor and productivity, I never once questioned your productivity. But now that I look at it, it looks like you just questioned mine. Have a care to make sure your advice and accusations are not in conflict with each other in the future

@TParis: -- Tom, while you have a point that HIAB could tone the rhetoric down by not throwing out "liar" at ever turn, LB is not some innocent victim here. I've seen several editors complain to admins, and non-admins alike about being "stalked" before. And the response is usually along the lines of "just following you to make sure policy is being followed". With our without the admin privileges, that is something that any editor is entitled to do, no? When does that behavior cross the line? Like anything else, when the community says so. If LB has such an issue with this, she should bring it to the community -- as it certainly doesn't belong here. Take away HIAB's ability to investigate possible dubious behavior only emboldens that behavior. It will only introduce more cries of harassment and forum shopping, admin shopping, arb shopping, Wales shopping, canvassing etc. and do nothing to cure the underlying problem here.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 08:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, I wish I would see that argument (he's not the only one) presented when an editor feels harrased by an admin. But this is just another of Wikipedia's many double standards. Remember everyone's pal MilesMoney? He wasn't afforded such consideration, nor should he have been. Nor should LB, though her issues are but a ripple in a pond to the shitstorm that was MM.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Karanacs[edit]

I'm not involved in this battle, other than having commented at the MfD, etc. I'd like to point out that 5 of the diffs provided by Lightbreather are from December 2014, over 6 weeks ago. Three more are centered around Lightbreather's efforts to create WikiProject Women and the MFD for the Kaffeeklatsch in her user space and do not reference her directly. That leaves only ONE diff from the last two months that mentions Lightbreather indirectly (diff 23). If the committee does endorse an IBAN (and I personally don't see the necessity), please clarify whether or not this means that Hell in a Bucket is allowed to talk about Lightbreather's efforts to create WikiProject Women and the Kaffeeklatsch in her userspace. While I understand that she doesn't want him referring to her or about her, if he isn't allowed to comment on gender-related issues because LB brought them up or otherwise commented on them, then he's essentially topic-banned from discussions related to the gender gap, because she is one of the more active participants in that effort right now. Karanacs (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Euryalus. Karanacs (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it quite disturbing that Lightbreather filed this request for an IBAN (on WP) the day after she began tweeting comments that HIAB had made on WP - comments that did not directly refer to Lightbreather (and ones which she used in her evidence section here). It gives the impression that she intends to comment on, or at least highlight, his posts off-wiki while depriving him of the opportunity to protest her actions or interpretation of his here on WP (where the comments were made). It's another in a line of actions that seems like poking the bear. Karanacs (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies - I'm a numbers nerd, so I thought I'd compile some of the statistics you asked for. I tried to go back as far as Sep 1, 2014 (approx 5 months of data) on the main pages and looked at what types of edits were made. Diffs are to the first edit made in that thread. Karanacs (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification per request of Lightbreather: I did include the ARCA requests for all of 2014 and 2015 (for both parties), not just September on. Hell in a Bucket did have other ARCA edits, but those were in 2010 and thus are stale. I did not do the same on other pages because there were many more edits and I got bored. I also did not check any pages but those mentioned here. Karanacs (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

• Lightbreather:

1. initiated Amendment request: Interactions at GGTF [110] 1 Feb
2. commented at Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling [111] 1 Feb
3. initiated Gun Control amendment request [112] 19 May 2014
4. initiated Clarification request: Gun control#Gaijin42 (topic banned) [113] 6 May 2014

• Hell in a Bucket

1. commented in this request [114] 1 Feb 2015
2. Commented in Clarification request: Banning Policy (against banning Tarc) [115] 11 Nov 2014
3. initiated Clarification request: CASE/Sexology [116] 27 Sep 014

WP:AE

• Lightbreather

1. Statement against Eric Corbett and Cassianto [117] 28 Jan 2015
2. Initiated against Eric Corbett [118] 24 Jan 2015
3. statement against Mike Searson [119] 20 Jan 2015

• Hell in a Bucket

1. initiated against Neotarf [120] 26 Sep 2014

ANI

• Lightbreather

1. commented about Eric Corbett [121] 26 Jan 2015
2. commented - taking HIAB to task for calling her a liar [122] 18 Dec 2014
3. initiated - notice of RFC that had to be about Eric Corbett [123] 3 Oct 2014
4. commented - incivility and content contribution [124] 2 Oct 2014
5. initiated - against scalhotrod, [125] 22 Sep 2014, later accusing him of wikistalking [126] 25 Sep 2014; later asked for section to be closed because started an RFCU about Scalhotrod [127] 27 Sep 2014
6. commented - evidence against Mike Searson [128] 26 Sep 2014
7. seconded request for help with IP vandalism on GGTF [129] 19 Sep 2014

(Note, these threads included that she asked for or others have proposed interaction bans between her and Eric Corbett, Scalhotrod, Hell in a Bucket)

• Hell in a Bucket

1. commented in support of Cassianto [130] 29 Jan 2015
2. commented at block review for TheRedPenofDoom (defense of blockee) [131] 17 Jan 2015
3. initiated against LightBreather [132] 18 Dec 2014
4. initiated against Lightbreather [133] 4 Dec 2014
5. initiated against TParis over refactoring at Lightbreather's talk page [134] 1 Dec 2014
6. commented in thread about blueSalix and AFD (in defense) [135] 24 Nov 2014
7. initiated - needing someone to revdel his own mistake [136] 8 Nov 2014
8. commented - supported a blocking admin on a block on BengaliHindu [137] 26 Oct 2014
9. commented - defending Tarc [138] 26 Oct 2014
10. initiated - issue on SMH Records AFD [139] 18 Oct 2014
11. initiated - ban or block for Neotarf [140] 26 Sep 2014

AN

• Lightbreather

1. Support topic ban on Sue Rangell [141] 7 Aug 2014

• Hell in a Bucket

1. comment - general statement on blocking and conflicts [142] 24 Nov
2. Initiated - posted RFC on SPI Clerk Selection process [143] 17 Aug 2014

SPIs

• Lightbreather

1. initiated against North8000 [144] 1 Feb 2015
2. commented in one against darknipples [145] 24 Jan 2015
3. commented on one against her [146] 16 Jan 2015
4. initiated against Sue Rangell [147] 17 Dec 2014
5. commented in one against Jazzerino [148] 17 Dec 2014

• Hell in a Bucket

1. initiated one for Croonerman [149] 2 Feb 2015
2. commented on one against Lightbreather, saying didn't believe it was her [150] 16 Jan 2015
3. initiated against Pearljambandaid [151] 3 Dec 2014
4. commented on SPI for Sue Rangell/EChastain [152] 30 Nov 2014
5. initiated against Lightbreather [153] 28 Nov 2014
6. initiated against Italyo8629 [154] 26 Nov 2014
7. initiated against Pearljambandaid [155] 23 Nov 2014
8. initiated against Smith and Ken Dubai [156] 16 Nov 2014
9. initiated against Pearljambandaid [157] 8 Nov 2014
10. initiated against Ellapura [158] 8 Nov 2014
11. initiated against Smauritius [159] 28 Oct 2014
12. initiated against Smith and Ken Dubai [160] 26 Oct 2014

RFC:

• Lightbreather - Began RFC on Scalhotrod [161] 27 Sep 2014 (deleted as uncertified on 18 Nov)

Statement by Gaijin42[edit]

I delayed commenting here, because I want to keep my head down and improve my own reputation at being associated with controversial/drama areas, and my past differences with LB have largely been resolved, but as this keeps dragging on, I cannot help but comment.

LB, You may not have "lied", but at a minimum you strongly mislead. Sorry, not all diffs due to difficulty of hunting them up, but these edits certainly are intended to read as a denial. A denial that was untrue. you might have thought you meant to say "I used multiple accounts, but such use was not a violation of the policy", but that is not what you said. Both comments implied checkuser would find the IP not to be LB. When the discussion at hand was specifically accusing the IPs of being LB, these dissembling statements can accurately be described as lies. Own up to what you did, and let your future behavior repair your reputation.

• I read WP:CHK. If it allowed English Wikipedia editors to request checks on themselves I would do so. If someone would request one for me, I would welcome it. Not that my opinion will change the outcome. 72.223.98.118 10:39 am, 24 November 2014,
• [162] Who said "oppressed"? My use of an IP address is for a legitimate purpose: Privacy - with a capital "P" - but since a few here think I'm not participating in good faith, I'm reading up on maybe requesting a checkuser on myself. Especially if that get's the discussion back on the case and involved parties.

On the other hand, HIAB (and others) would do well to stop poking the bear, and to let things drop. LB screwed up. She has subsequently admitted to the screwup. (although her misdirection regarding "lie" here is not helpful) The repeated subsequent sock accusations have been on extremely thin evidence and certainly read as if trying to chase her off and comments like "once a liar always a liar" are not helpful. The clerks and CUs know how to look at past cases, and even if you want to remind them of some relevant facts, there are a lot less aggressive ways of doing so. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies clarification about your statement " Such a t-ban would not of course cover the Kaffeeklatsch‎ but for as long as it remained in user space the i-ban would" Do you mean that the Kaffeeklatsch is not inherently part of the GGTF and therefore would not automatically be covered, but the new if discussions in the new "broadly construed" tban happen there they would still be covered? Or that the kaffeeklatsch page would be an island immune to the tban? Either one seems problematic. Obvious reasons for the second, but for the first, the recent MFD as well as its purpose as a "trial baloon" for LB's wikiproject seem to tie it fairly intrinsically to the GGTF or discussions regarding the gap. I have no comment as to if LB should be tbanned, but if she is, I can't see how the kaffeeklatsch could serve any non-violating purpose. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush[edit]

As Salvio has suggested, Lightbreather is indeed a vexatious litigant and, as Gaijin has suggested, her response to the IP edits around the time of the GGTF ArbCom case certainly gave the impression that she was being at best economical with the truth. There is a fair amount of off-wiki stuff that might demonstrate a real concern regarding WP:NOTHERE on her part but this situation certainly is not helped when both parties repeatedly use events that occurred some time ago as the mainstay of their positions. That said, IBANs never work properly because they end up being lawyered to death and from this follows ...

... that there are things that I cannot say here but the gist is that an IBAN, which LB has consistently tried to obtain, would suit her well-publicised/self-admitted agenda far more than it would suit any agenda that HIAB might have. This IBAN demand is a pattern which is unfortunately developing in the gender-related/contributor-related sphere that has raised it head of late. Those who favour the GGTF purpose seem often to be keen to exact IBANs etc and it does seem that it would be a means of stifling even valid criticism, which the GGTF case explicitly said should be permitted. RegentsPark raised this point regarding the nefarious potential effect on my own talk page a while ago but it would be unwise for me to link to it without permission from the arbitrators because of my own IBAN situation, which could easily be gamed.

I think both are fairly combative contributors and that neither really do as much as they should in genuine article space (exclude article talk pages because they're mostly tendentious arenas in the context of their favoured topics of gender, gun control etc). I would encourage them to contribute more to articles directly and less to the more-heat-than-light nonsense. Even if that means moving away from their primary interests, which have enough other editors willing to wiki-die for the "cause" anyway

Anyone who wants diffs, feel free to specify what you want but please bear in mind my own restrictions and those of policy re: off-site stuff. - Sitush (talk)

@Lightbreather: I didn't say that you had always sought IBANs involving yourself but those that you refer to - and this request itself - are, I think, 100% more than I have ever tried to obtain. And, believe me, I spend most of my time in a very contentious subject area that is under discretionary sanctions. There are, of course, many off-wiki comments that you or someone else using your name have made that could be added to the mix, including referring to people (me, almost certainly) as "The Troll". I can't link to them and I am pretty sure that there is a lot more going on than appears in the archives of publicly accessible mailing lists.

Whatever, I think the pair of you should move on to other things far distant from the mess that is circling gender-related material and indeed gun control etc. I don't expect you to accept my opinion but I am entitled to it. Equally, I don't think an IBAN should be applied because, truth be told, it would favour one "side" by elimination and thus be both grossly unfair and contrary to the GGTF arbcom case decision that valid criticism should not be stifled. I find it interesting that you seem generally to be far more tolerant of criticism when it comes from self-identified women, eg: User_talk:Anne_Delong#Test_Kaffeeklatsch_area_for_women-only. You are on a mission, and missions on WP usually end up in tears, in my limited experience. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You link to two admin-help requests for removal of content involving Eric Corbett in your own evidence, which were responded to at the time and yet you still cannot let that go. That is a fairly trivial example of your vexatiousness/forum shopping but an example nonetheless. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather: my apologies - you are a participant in two sort-of related gender-gap discussions that are going on at the same time on this page. See your remarks re: Go Phightins and NE Ent in the section here. I think that I should withdraw now because things are only going to get messier and, yep, I have better things to do with my time. I knew before I started that you were not find a compromise through me or anyone else who disagrees with you, so perhaps even contributing here was a mistake. My apologies for that, too: I should have more sense that to engage in a hopeless cause. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: there are a lot of assumptions in your appeal to the arbs, and a blatant suggestion that self-identified women should be cut a little more slack. That seems wrong to me and indeed is contrary to the outcome of the case, which (paraphrase) said that legitimate criticism should not be impeded. This is the core of the problem: some people do not like those who criticise them and seeking IBANs is a way to prevent the criticism. - Sitush (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather: I think you may be misunderstanding the term vexatious litigant, which has a meaning that perhaps goes beyond your dictionary definition of vexatious. I'm no lawyer but my understanding is that is refers to someone who repeatedly attempts to press a case, using similar evidence, even after their original presentation of the case has been rejected. There isn't much doubt that you have acted in this way in relation to various issues, most of which concern the gender gap farrago and your involvement in it. It might be argued that HiaB is being vexatious in their repetition of old arguments but, since it is you who brought the present two cases in front of this noticeboard, the onus is upon you to lead the way and HiaB is entitled to defend their position using whatever evidence is available. No doubt a lawyer will now tell me that I am wrong! - Sitush (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those arbs who are arguing that an IBAN would be A Good Thing now seem to be missing the point that it seems not to be within their remit to establish such a thing. ArbCom had its chance during the case and, although I was added as a late party, neither Lightbreather nor HIAB were parties. The entire case was a travesty - with its many twists, turns, almost total lack of clerking, obvious bias and ultimate retitling - and if it were not for the initial evidence from two people heavily involved in one aspect of it, the thing may never even have attracted any submissions beyond the serial procedural questioner, Robert McClenon. The fact is, this proposal, like so many efforts by the highly disruptive (vexatious etc) Lightbreather and the slightly-less disruptive HIAB, falls outside scope. If you can amend a case to include people who were not even party to it and who are not in breach of the DS then we might as well refer everything at ANI to this noticeboard instead. We all know that the Committee is overworked as it is: this is a dangerous creep of powers and the issue, if there is one, should be left to the community. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: do you accept that LB is a vexatious litigant, regardless of whether you think others may be writing off her latest concerns because of that opinion? Do you need evidence of it? Isn't yet another ban, of whatever type, just adding another brick to the wall that restricts open discussion of gender-based issues and how best to move forward in reducing the gap? And did you discuss your proposal on the arb's private channels (mailing list, IRC, whatever it is) beforehand? Why do you think it is within scope? - Sitush (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare:, Ok, thanks. Since you answered no to all of the above, we're obviously in massive disagreement here. I think that I may compile a case challenging LB's vexatious behaviour, mostly relating to forum shopping, wikilawyering and perhaps even gaming etc on gender-related issues. Given that you think it is ok for this present issue to proceed here, I will beg leave to file it here rather than at ANI. I am aware of WP:POINT but she has been doing this sort of thing for long enough and unless there is a more equitable solution proposed below, one that better reflects what is actually going on, I really do think there is a case to answer. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather: absolutely no idea why you just pinged me. I don't think I have ever said that the Kaffeeklatsch thing did breach WMF policy (I can read) and I'd already effectively acknowledged the WMF Legal opinion in a note to someone else on your talk page. Don't drag me into it, please: I think it is a bad idea but I didn't comment at the MfD for a reason. - Sitush (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: regarding your 2nd draft, points 1 (b) and (c). As it stands, both parties would need to contact ArbCom regarding any such desire to involve themselves in DR forums etc. Is that deliberate? For example, it would necessitate LB asking permission of ArbCom for things relating to another of her particular interests, ie: gun control. Also, and I think someone may have raised this before, is it intended to be some sort of majority vote of ArbCom or would it be the case that a single arbitrator could allow/deny such a request? I've got the feeling this is going to add a shed-load of work for the arbs, who already have a lot to do. That said, I don't have any solutions either and I do appreciate the effort. - Sitush (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: yours seems like a truly remarkable statement. You seem to think that LB should have some sort of free pass because she is trying to revoke any sort of pass for Eric? Talk about doing things by proxy: if you have a problem with Eric etc (who is not even involved in this and has not been notified) then maybe try to sort it out yourself? Although now you have nailed your colours to that mast you may find it necessary to recuse in any future arb dealings that might even remotely relate to him. As for the seemingly casual throwing-in of the "sexist" word, well, my mind boggles. I must be missing something subtle here; in fact, I actually hope I am. - Sitush (talk) 08:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EChastain[edit]

Hell in a Buckets statement was made at a SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather. Do these sanctions apply everywhere, even when Lightbreather hasn't actually interacted there?

One comment was made on the talk page of Salvio giuliano.[163] Do these sanctions apply on all talk pages?

GorillaWarfare is quoted inaccurately. She actually posted: Happy to help, though not sure how I would. You two can decide to just avoid each other (without any enforcement), but Chillum is right that a formal IBAN should be discussed in a wider venue.[164]

EChastain (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gaijin42: the SPI's against Lightbreather are the result of her editing on gun control and have nothing to do with the editors here. EChastain (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio giuliano: This is the fourth litigation that Lightbreather has contributed a large amount of evidence to at ARCA in the last seven days, plus being active at SPI. I believe this is overboard and she is "vexatious litigant", using SPI's and filings here and elsewhere to get her way.

@Lightbreather: per your comment above: I started an SPI against EChastain, who I am sure formerly edited as Sue Rangell. Please AGF and stop the personal attacks. Your SPI against me was closed.[165] Your vendetta against Sue Rangell is apparently based on this[166], resulting in your topic ban from gun control.

@Salvio giuliano: Lightbreather never drops the stick. I've never edited anything to do with gun control. She currently has a SPI open accusing an ip and Faceless Enemy of being sockpuppets based on gun control edits.[167] To me her constant use of various forums against other editors fits civil POV pushing. She shouldn't be a one person civility patrol, requiring every edit to fit her definition of a "tone was respectful and polite". EChastain (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @TParis: In the past you've supported Lightbreather's phony claims that I was a sock of Sue Rangell at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell/Archive See your comments at [168] You said "Per Hell in a Bucket's insistence that I find the exact edits, here are all the ones dealing with Carolmoorede and Lightbreather - I hope this settles the matter as there were plenty and easy to find: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. There are more, but I think I made my point." None of your diffs had anything to do with Lightbreather. So I'm glad that HiaB was forceful in getting you to show that you had no evidence. Lightbreather requested ds enforcement against Sue Rangell.[169] and failed. That may be why she harbors a grudge against Sue Rangell who hasn't edited since last August.

• @Karanacs: I also find the tweeting you mention very disturbing.

• @Roger Davies: @Salvio giuliano: @Euryalus: Lightbreather is skilled at concocting a plausible narrative that other editors buy into without really looking at what's going on. A good example of this is at Lightbreather's filing last July with her usual boatloads of diffs against Scalhotrod.[170] It was only after nearly two weeks and many comments from editors (and the usual kurfuffle that surrounds Lightbreather), that EdJohnson noticed that if someone was repeatedly removing edits (as Lightbreather was complaining), someone else with the opposite POV must be repeatedly putting them back (i.e. Lightbreather).(screen shot provided). End of story: both topic banned. This is why we need editors like Hell in a Bucket. EChastain (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*@TParis: On what basis do you believe that? I consider that a personal attack. Or else you just can't go by evidence. EChastain (talk)

*@TParis: I was not trying to bait you. I'm not Lightbreather. I'm just really surprised that you still think that based on zero evidence. Why do you think I am? EChastain (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*@TParis: I don't care one wit about an Iban. I brought it up because Lightbreather brough it up in her comments above. "I started an SPI against EChastain,[34] who I am sure formerly edited as Sue Rangell (and at least one admin agrees[35])." So you are that one admin? EChastain (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*@TParis: Now that I've seen your edit summary: "Ahh, so the purpose of your remark was to bait me into saying I still believe it so then you could call it a personal attack? I see. I hope everyone takes note of what just happened", I'm wondering what you are trying to do. What are you trying to do? EChastain (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Euryalus: The Sue Rangell SPI was not part of the GGTF. That Lightbreather and TParis say it is doesn't make it so. This is a great example of how Lightbreather manages to continue her vendetta against Sue Rangell, regardless of the venue. Sue Rangell was thought to be an enemy by Lightbreather. through their interactions regarding gun control. It has nothing to do with GGTF, although it does show that Lightbreather behaves viciously against women that she sees as her enemy, gender not withstanding. She knows I am a woman This makes a mockery of her desire for a "safe place for women". Lightbreather doesn't want to use ANI, as her use of that forum is now too public.

• @Roger Davies: @Salvio giuliano: @Euryalus: I regret that I responded to TParis regarding his accusations that I am Sue Rangell and have struck out those remarks. He has stated that he is responding to an email request by Lightbreather This is Lightbreather's current modus operandi now that she is aware that others see her on wiki behavior in places as ANI. Her use of the Twitter account is disturbing. I urge you and other arbs to see this as part of a focused pattern, exemplified by her success in getting Eric Corbett sanctioned.[171] She attempted again by supporting a filing by Rationalobserver three days later.[172] Her current comments about him at Requests/Clarification and Amendment[173] continue her targeting of Eric Corbett. I think she has an agenda to target editors who point out her faults. I am apparently on that list, in the guise of Sue Rangell. I don't know if she actually thinks I'm Sue Rangell, or that is just a means of silencing me. I sense a "chill", where editors now are fearful of getting involved in criticising her. Please don't let this continue. This forum is obscure and not a very public place. It is being abused. EChastain (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @SlimVirgin: I am a woman. I don't think that your suggestion is a good one since in this filing, Lightbreather accused me of being a sock of Sue Randell, despite no evidence. She knows I'm a woman and Sue Rangell is a woman that Lightbreather tried unsuccessfully to sanction over gun control. Sue Rangell was driven away from wikipedia. (I provided some evidence above and can supply more.) To me this makes a farce of Lightbreather's request. Hell in a Bucket goes by evidence. We need this. Lightbreather supporter TParis does not. He was recruited by her through email. EChastain (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lightbreather: Regarding the diffs you just added without signing (which is sneaky)[174][175][176][177][178][179], does this mean that because I was open about sending email and you aren't, that this is my bad? EChastain (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TParis: wow, you pinged me one minute after my comment to Lightbreather. I'm impressed!. I can see that one of her links goes back to December and has nothing to due with this. And another doesn't even involve me at all. Do you want me to go through all of them? Should I tell SlimVirgin that you're hassling a women, i.e. me? Also, Lightbreather is making changes to her evidence without signing. That's not right. EChastain (talk)

Yes TParis, after the fact you revealed you were emailed. But how many emails did Lightbreather send out? I'm sure you're not the only one who got an email. Did SlimVirgin? How many others did? How come GorillaWarefare and others who Lightbreather pinged didn't respond. This is all very underhanded. And Lightbreather doesn't leave edit summaries. She isn't open and transparent. That puts those of us who are at a disadvantage. My comments must be threatening to Lightbreather, if you feel that you must target me in such a way. EChastain (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather: You're continuing to taper with evidence already presented without signing. Do you know that's wrong? EChastain (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Karanacs: Regarding the request by Roger Davies for data. This was left out:

Lightbreather at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

• [180] initiated 24 January 2015 by Lightbreather, resulting in a 48 hour block of Eric Corbett

• Eric Corbett (2), initiated by Rationalobserver [181], long comment by LB on 28 January 2015[182]. Case closed and deleted shortly after.

Roger Davies Karanacs requested that I add these here. EChastain (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Lightbreather needs to be accountable for the false SPI's she files and not just the two against me. Just now her filing agains Faceless Enemy was closed because of unconvincing evidence.[183] It's very upsetting to be accused this way, and as Faceless Enemy says, this SPI seems to be made in bad faith. EChastain (talk)

Statement by Hawkeye7[edit]

I don't follow Euryalus's point that an i-ban would not cover interactions outside en-WP. Per WP:IBAN: they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. In the past ArbCom has held this to include interaction elsewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TParis[edit]

The evidence that Hell in a Bucket (as well as Lightbreather) has personalized this dispute can be seen in this diff. It's one thing to say that Lightbreather has lied, and to say she has been a liar in the past, however, suggesting that she will always be a liar in the future unnecessarily personalizes the dispute. Hell in a Bucket can say that she has lied in the past, he can provide diffs to support his accusation. What he cannot do is supply diffs to prove she will lie in the future. Thusly, any accusations of future behavior fails WP:NPA. Arbcom should take note of the subtilties in this case because I believe what I am demonstrating is that fine lines are being played in an effort to stir Lightbreather into a frenzy and then use her (over?)reactions to discredit her.

If fairness or justice are your reasons not to consider an interaction ban, perhaps the idea that HIAB hasn't "earned" it, then I implore you to remember that we are here to be preventative and not punitive. Waiting until HIAB "deserves" it is punitive. Separating them now is preventative. Clearly, these two cannot get along and seperating them does Wikipedia nothing but good. There are no down sides at all to an IBAN between these two. These are plenty of downsides to not IBANing them. ANI threads, drama, accusations of sexism, Arbcom enforcement requests, etc, etc. Let's just separate them and be done with it, please.--v/r - TP 06:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Meant to add - I was requested via email by Lightbreather to make a comment and she agreed that I would make that clear in my statement. I forgot to add it so I am mentioning this postscript.--v/r - TP 06:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @TKOP: HIAB is not the only person who can "investigate" Lightbreather. If he considers himself the Sole Wielder of the Almighty Sword of the Defender of Wikipedia (SWASDW) then there is a serious issue involving him. If he doesn't consider himself the SWASDW then there should be no opposition to letting someone else step in, and there are plenty of folks who know Lightbreather by now to do so. Regarding Lightbreather, she can testify to it herself but I've been less than entirely complimentry and supportive. I've given her as much criticism as I've given HIAB. Hers has probably just been more private because she and I often email each other. But I don't think she considers me an ally and I don't think HIAB considers me an ally either. My only interest in this dispute is that Wikipedia's time is being wasted and the rest of the community would be served by an IBAN between these two. Outside of this dispute, I consider both to be constructive editors.--v/r - TP 17:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @HIAB: What lie are you pointing to in this comment? She appears to be directly quoting you here. It looks like a word for word quote. Are you saying that you do not own the account on Meta Wikimedia?--v/r - TP 17:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Karanacs: I'm confused, you said that the comment do not directly refer to Lightbreather? Are you aware that the comments are being made in response to a proposal that Lightbreather herself put forward on meta? They were a direct response to her proposal.--v/r - TP 18:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @EChastain: I didn't just support Lightbreather's accusation, I believe them myself. I have no doubt in my mind that you are Sue. I've respectfully stayed away from the issue since the SPI went against me. Clearly HIAB feels confident enough in my judgement to criticize me and continue discussing things with me and I believe I've respected his opinion by backing off the subject. He hasn't changed my mind, but he has demonstrated that I don't have enough proof to convince others. Fair enough on him. What is your point in bringing it up? Are you trying to get me to say that you are Sue to discredit me? I'm not sure that sort of shallow attempt will make any sort of difference here. Are you trying to say I have a grudge against HIAB? I'm not sure HIAB believes I have a grudge against them or else they wouldn't be open to talking to me so often. I'd be very interested to know the point you want to make by bringing the issue up because at the moment I don't see the relevance here. I haven't even mentioned you here or on Wiki since the SPI. Are you asking for an IBAN between you and me? You can absolutely have one, it doesn't matter one lick to me.--v/r - TP 22:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh, so the purpose of your remark was to bait me into saying I still believe it so then you could call it a personal attack? I see. I hope everyone takes note of what just happened.--v/r - TP 22:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • EChastain - Thank you for the four notifications that you sent me. I'm well aware that you've replied to me multiple times. I think we've moved past anything the Arbs would fine relevant and I know from prior cases that they feel the back-and-forth is unhelpful. You brought it up, I've said my piece on the matter, you've responded, I've moved on. Please stop pinging me for every thought you have about me. Have a good day.--v/r - TP 23:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • EChastain - Two points. #1) HIAB said that Lightbreather lied. However, Lightbreather's comment is supported here. Is this the evidence you are talking about? #2) You outright state in this comment that you were open about emailing HIAB while Lightbreather was not. However, this comment by me only two minutes after my first comment here specifically states that I was asked to make a comment and it was with the agreement and understanding that we would be open that I was asked to make it via email. So, I'm confused about your assertion that my being here was not open. Could you clarify your distinction between your behavior and Lightbreathers and explain how the negative portrayal of her behavior that you've expressed does not also apply to you using evidence - and please explain the contradictory evidence I have just provided.--v/r - TP 01:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EChastain: Both of those are in there already. Karanacs did a great job and paid attention to detail.--v/r - TP 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @SlimVirgin: Care to opine?--v/r - TP 02:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Roger Davies: This cannot be taken on the surface without some sort of real analysis to get into the finer details. But it gives some cursory ideas into the answer to your question.--v/r - TP 21:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Karanacs: Thank you for your investigation. I think your evidence shows that LB is no more "vex-whatever" than HIAB. I think the Arbs who have described her as such either should swallow a bit of their pride and offer her an apology for their assumptions without evidence or, if they want to take the easy way out with their pride intact, they should describe HIAB under similar terms and remedies.--v/r - TP 23:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

While no one would breath a bigger sigh of relief than I, if Lightbreather and HellInABucket were to leave each other alone, I don't think this is a matter for this page.

Considering an Iban here would be an end-run around the normal processes, effectively making "Clarifications and Amendments" a supervening version of AN/I. Indeed it has been used in this way before, but in custom does not hallow such usage, rather it damns those who allow it.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

Statement by SlimVirgin[edit]

I would like to ask the committee to consider this request within the context of trying to close the gender gap on Wikipedia. One of the many issues believed to deter women from editing is that they can't stop particular people from interacting with them. The only option we offer is a public process such as this one, where they're expected to present diffs about the person they prefer not to engage with. If, despite putting themselves through that, an IBAN won't be granted even when there's no compelling reason to decline it, we're effectively saying that we're not willing to solve that part of the gender-gap problem. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doncram[edit]

This would go away as an issue if ARBCOM would here make a sensible declaration establishing a basic right for semi-private clubs to operate as WikiProjects, for advancement of wikipedia in any topic area, where members can define their own membership requirements or admissions processes, and where members can exclude participation of non-members (e.g. to allow a all-women task force to operate without interruption). It would be semi-private in that what the WikiProject does is visible. This could lead to some wikiprojects splintering, e.g. a new GGTF being formed with possibly all-women membership, leaving the existing GGTF behind, which would not be all bad IMO. I've seen mention of an all-women internet forum that works well having a self-declaration of being female as a requirement. Allowing WikiProjects to be semi-private clubs could lead to me, or you, being excluded from some groups that we might prefer to belong to, but it would be better overall. It would be more like human groups operate in real life; they don't have to tolerate bullying or any other intolerable behavior indefinitely.

And, it is embarrassing to be an editor/member of Wikipedia, with all this going on. GGTF's media list is humbling. Sue Gardner's 2011 blog still applies. Anita Borg's "How to Edit Wikipedia" is meant to give advice to women editors, and is good advice, but it is humiliating to me to be part of this place, where the good advice includes "However, if the edit summary uses “you” or “your” aggressively...or obvious insults (often in the form of questions such as, “Are you kidding me?”), it is time to disengage and decide what to do next." And where it's useful to warn prospective editors to "Beware editors who only want to talk about content; who feel that civility is not a problem on Wikipedia; who dismiss other editors or tell others to ignore problems; and who constantly derail discussions. GGTF scoffers often ask for evidence that there really is a gender gap on Wikipedia, or that people (especially women) have been driven off by the hostile editing environment." I am pretty ashamed of a lot about this place, and can't recommend joining here, because I'd have to give stronger caveats than Anita Borg gives, and what I could say would just be too negative for me to assert to any friend that positives reasons for participating balanced out.

Males imposing themselves in the GGTF space are embarrassing, whether they are bumbling in well-intentionally or whether they are just meanly imposing themselves to derail discussions. Some men might be trying to "help" the poor women, patronizingly. I am a man; is that my motive in commenting here? Will I be heard better because I am a man? The Vintage Feminist and Lightbreather's pithy comments on having a private space are well-put. Allow there to be an effing table. Corporations and universities do allow private-like clubs for good purposes. Bores imposing themselves are told to knock it off, or they will be fired or expelled.

ARBCOM should just now declare this. Think of U.S. supreme court case Marshall v. Madison in which the court chose to assume an obviously needed authority not previously established. Or other cases declaring various basic human rights. --doncram 02:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To be clear, I am not saying either Lightbreather or Hellinabucket is more or less at fault about whatever, recently or previously in this case titled "interactions at GGTF". I think it doesn't matter. My point is that ARBCOM can/should get out of the business of regulating interactions within interest club areas of Wikipedia, and let the clubs do it themselves, by suitable membership requirements and processes. A new GGTF could choose to include L or H or neither, or conditionally include both with requirement that they behave nicely or that they do not interact at all, either just within the GGTF group or everywhere, with whatever simple or complicated justice system they wish to invent. Adults present are perfectly capable of setting up rules of order and running their own justice system processes. It also can be difficult for many groups to take on responsibility to regulate the behavior of their members and of interruptors from afar; it is not a fun process for a group of persons who just share an interest in a topic area, to take on the tasks of defining good vs. bad behavior, of setting exclusive membership requirements, and of creating/running unpleasant processes to address confrontations, bluntly. Or to define more subtle mechanisms that work well enough. But it can be worth it, sometimes, to invest in that. Let Wikiprojects do it, since Wikipedia as a whole is failing in doing it well. In my opinion Wikiprojects here are fundamentally flawed in that they cannot limit membership, and that is a contributing reason for most Wikiprojects fading away. In my opinion some Wikiprojects have done better than others by informally enforcing membership requirements, to their benefit, and to the betterment of their topical areas in Wikipedia, e.g. by successfully encouraging incompatible "outsiders" to depart, nicely enough, or by promoting "insiders" by an election process that works (wp:MILHISTORY). And ARBCOM, from far away, cannot do better than allowing small groups of people to come to their own arrangements. The evidence can't be presented fully, and ARBCOM can't understand the evidence, often, and it isn't necessary if ARBCOM would get out of this business. --doncram 03:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NE Ent, I wasn't aware of Lightbreather's "women only" User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch that you mention; but I think it is nonsense to assert that "is clearly against WMF's nondiscrimation policy". All sorts of minority interest groups operate within schools and corporations that are obviously committed to nondiscrimination. I did understand L was interested in having private space(s), and I believe that explicitly allowing them would tend to diminish the need for ARBCOM to regulate interactions. It sure would be nice if more spaces in Wikipedia had simple nice conduct rules like that one does. It's a start! (Sorry if this is a discussion-like reply which you speak against.) --doncram 03:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of a lot more, e.g. huge MFD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch. My point still is that ARBCOM could help by clearly approving private club spaces, whether or not there is such a community discussion going on, and ARBCOM could indicate it wishes to get out of business of regulating interactions where local groups can do it better. I guess ARBCOM can regulate membership at the level of English Wikipedia-wide boundary, but I think it should try to back off on interfering within smaller local clubs. And not let itself be played by those who want to interfere/disrupt the clubs. --doncram 07:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: Thanks for acknowledging, let me interpret that as establishing Arbcom is aware of the issue of semi-private club spaces.

Note new interaction between these two users (now including this 1st, and this 2nd, out of 9 comments so far by Hellinabucket at the MFD, all effectively interactions with Lightbreather, as comments on Lightbreather's user space semi-private club) suggests that Arbcom's consideration of this specific matter is relevant. Per Gruban's comment below to you speaking against needless queuing of issues, I suggest that Arbcom should indeed try to lead on this issue (and discuss and decide itself on the existence of semi-private club spaces). There's enough said in the MFD already for you to be pretty well informed about community views, already. I suggest a motion: "We find that one issue between these 2 editors is disagreement over whether a women-only discussion space can exist in Wikipedia. Based on community discussion so far at MFD, and accepted practice that users can restrict others from commenting on their own Talk pages, a) we find that it is at most a small extension to clarify that Lightbreather can restrict participation in a women-only forum in her User space (not just her own Talk page) and b) we at least temporarily endorse that women-only forum as being okay." Or just say that ARBCOM sees no obvious problem so far. It is understood that ARBCOM rulings can be changed later, and ARBCOM's views could be changed by further future community discussion, but resolving something like this would lead on the issue, for a change. And clarity on the club space would take away one topic of disagreement between these two, and the club space itself will reduce interaction between these two (I assume LB will participate there and Hiab will not). --doncram 21:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent[edit]

Decorum[edit]

I went to WP:ARCA and an WP:ANI broke out.

In the big scary pink box atop this page it claims:

"This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive."

The edit history [184] shows a whole lotta incremental and not very much (any) clerking. Nothing breeds contempt for an institution than drawing a line in the sand which you're unwilling to back up.

Rehashing closed SPI's, regardless of the outcome, should not be tolerated. There's no doubt, due to the technical limitations and WMF privacy policy, there are false positives and false negatives. For the sake of community cohesiveness, we need to be mature about this and accept closure.

Finally, comment on the content, not on the contributor, is almost always good advice, it certainly applies to prior incarnations of the committee. Motions to address shortcomings which have become apparent are worthwhile, snarky made a mess comments are not.

Request at hand[edit]

Short version[edit]

Dismiss with prejudice; the filing party has provided no evidence they've attempted to use community processes to resolve this; don't reward behavior you don't want repeated.

Longer version[edit]

While in some abstract point of view Lightbreather has good intentions, there's no doubt her overly aggressive approach is mildly disruptive. For example, her admin-shopping [185] an already answered request to censor Eric Corbett's comments on WP:WER. Or, rather than collegially joining a gender neutral conversation in progress, attempting to steer into GGTF politics how many women have been involved in these discussions? . The answer, incidentally is, I don't know because I generally don't know the gender of other Wikipedians; most preferences are set to "he/she," and I rarely check -- what difference does it make to how I interact with them??

That said, this concept the Hell in a Bucket must not be IBANed so they can "scrutinize" Lightbreather's edits is silly; her engagement style is not subtle and requires no sleuthing. Wikipedia would be better off if HIAB found something else to worry about. The reason not to impose an IBAN is the evidence to date -- with regards to these two editors specifically and IBANs in general -- shows that rather than providing an avenue to deescalate the situation, it would be a source of conflict over perceived violations by the other party.

Yes, Lightbreather is doing some counterproductive things, such as the "women only" User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch in her user space which is clearly against WMF's nondiscrimation policy -- so what? As almost no one is actually editing it [186], it's a harmless violation that is best ignored per path of least drama. Or her hypocrisy in complaining about HIAB going off page [187] while concurrently canvassing TParis via email. To date, I'm not seeing any evidence of disruption to anything important (mainspace) nor egregious personal attacks on editors, so at this point patience is best; she'll either begin to figure out to work with the community or she'll annoy enough people often enough per Wikipedia:First_Law she'll get site banned (via WP:AN or arbcom related venue). Hopefully it's the former; obviously we need as many editors (regardless of gender) as we can get. NE Ent 03:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GRuban[edit]

The presented evidence on one side seems to boil down to: "Lightbreather and Hell in a Bucket can't get along." The presented evidence on the other side seems to boil down to: "Lightbreather is a big meany." The second doesn't seem to contradict the first. Therefore, per SlimVirgin and DGG, I recommend endorsing the request.

Assuming the community plans to allow Lightbreather to continue editing - and I don't see anything of the severity level as to argue for an indefinite ban - then clearly we don't want her to continue to interact with Hell in a Bucket, since that interaction seems to consist mostly of harassment. --GRuban (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus: Yes, I can see an argument that this isn't really part of the GGTF arbitration; but it is arguable (both have certainly been participants in a few of the GGTF arguments), and, well, in the end, I have to admit the difference doesn't really bother me all that much. Maybe it's because I'm not a clerk or admin, but I still have hopes that we're not like the legendary bureaucracy where you have to stand in one queue for a long time, only to be told at the end that this was actually the wrong queue and you instead need to stand in that completely different queue, except, sorry, it's closing time, so you'll have to come back tomorrow, except, tomorrow is a legal holiday, and you'll have to come back Wednesday, except the clerk that handles that form is on vacation then, and their replacement is sick with the flu, and... We have here a noticeable number of experienced admins that can enact the interaction ban, and, apparently, enough that agree that it is a good idea. If you really think the distinction is important enough, then it can be enacted with the notice "This is not, technically, part of the GGTF arbcom case"; I don't think it should matter that much. --GRuban (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dank[edit]

To the extent this is a case about gender gap issues, I think SlimVirgin nails it above (with one slight tweak: I'd replace the first "they" with "users"). 12:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@No one in particular, regarding the objection that it's not Arbcom's job to do anything about the gender gap: yes and no. I know people who stage protest marches for various causes from time to time, and a recurring problem is that no matter what they're marching for, people will show up and try to make it all about their own cause. So, in any context where we're trying to deal with a conflict between two people, it's not helpful to let the discussion get hijacked by any cause. OTOH, if Wikipedia appears to be a place where it's rarely possible to get help if someone is stalking your edits and doggedly engaging you (and it does appear that way to a lot of people), then it would be more efficient to deal with that problem than to ignore it and instead deal piecemeal with the hundreds of disputes that result from not looking at the root cause. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Capeo[edit]

@GorillaWarfare: So unfounded claims of sexism, snark and an outright personal attack is the level of decorum expected of Arbs these days? With the link to GeekFeminism you’re basically calling HiaB a Concern Troll and claiming his advice was given with nefarious motive. If you actually look at HiaB’s history you’d find this kind of advice giving is the norm (no matter the gender of the recipient) as is genuine efforts to defuse situations. You’ll also find when those efforts fail HaiB may end up, by his own admission, being hotheaded about it and not it let it go before he should which can even lead to exacerbating the issue. That said, impugning his motives is simply uncalled for and not supported by the evidence presented. In fact, as many have noted, the evidence shows LB often tries to get sanctions on those who disagree with or criticize her or, in this case, point out her lying during the GGTF case and her over the top, tit for tat sock hunt after getting caught herself. This kind of retributive behavior from LB has happened before when she accused a user of following her to the GGTF, quit the GGTF supposedly due to that user’s participation, and then immediately joined the project where that user was most active. Certainly not the behavior of somebody who is actively trying to avoid another user. It seems you’re ignoring the history of both users who are the subject of this request, both the good and the ill from each of them. There are no angels here and maybe an Iban is warranted but I see no evidence for implying one of the subjects is a troll nor how that could possibly help anything.

@SlimVirgin: I’m not exactly sure what you’re suggesting. For one it’s not in the remit of ArbCom to actively do anything about the gender gap and the only context they should be viewing anything in is policy. More importantly, are you suggesting that any user who professes to being a woman should simply be able to ask for and receive an Iban when they’re criticized or their past activity is brought up? Or, worse in my view, that this shouldn’t even have to happen in front of the community? Surely you realize that flies in the face of everything Wikipedia professes to be and would be abused to no end. There’s seems to be an assumption that any woman asking for Iban is clearly in the right consensus be damned. I’m sure this can’t be what you’re suggesting but I can’t really parse anything else from your statement. Capeo (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist (2)[edit]

I think loose monitoring is as inadequate as an iban alone; more "robust" remedies are needed here to address the underlying issues. The forum-shopping and vexatious conduct has understandably provoked some of the responses I've reviewed. Consequently, even I can't help but wonder whether any gaps are being increased rather than "addressed" if even one of the two editors is allowed to continue to participate in the topic, let alone interact with each other. That's the view I came to after reviewing the commentary above and on this page, together with several of the diffs. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add two points to what I've said, (1) I don't think HIAB's participation in dispute resolution warrants a restriction as such; and (2) dispute resolution does traditionally include content dispute resolution, so it might be better to specify something like "conduct-based dispute resolution". Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Harry Mitchell[edit]

@Guerillero: Bollocks. I'm not sure why Eric Corbett is being dragged into this (apart from the fact that he's yet another person to whom Lightbreather seems to have taken a dislike—I haven't been keeping score, but I've seen these names on my watchlist enough to get the impression that that's rather a long list). As far as I'm aware, there have been two recent AE requests against EC, the first of which resulted in a block for the mere mention of the GGTF (which spawned a lengthy and useless ARCA request of its own) and the second was closed as stale because the edit was a week old at the time of reporting. The latter was filed by Gamaliel, not Lightbreather. There is no problem with "admins actually enforcing the sanctions". Unless you're telling me that there are lots of violations going unreported (I don't follow EC's edits generally so I don't know), in which case how are admins supposed to deal with violations that aren't reported? Or that there are other enforcement requests that I'm unaware of where obvious violations of his restrictions were reported be not acted on, which seems unlikely to me because I've been closely monitoring AE for five years.

I've thus far refrained from commenting on this mess, but from where I stand we have a petty feud between two editors. It boils down to a few diffs of remarks that wouldn't be actionable on their own but which, taken together, suggest that the two of them need to forget each other for the good of the project. An interaction ban, if one were necessary, could have been done at AE. The rest of this is just a waste of bandwith generated partly by LB's poor choice of venue and partly by arbs talking past each other. The gender of either party is absolutely irrelevant, and Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if this politicisation of gender would stop. We're here to build an encyclopaedia—not bicker like children in the projectspace, not conduct political campaigns against each other, and not for anything else that does not contribute to the encyclopaedia.

Arbs, please close this nonsense. If you insist on talking past each other and going round in circles, defer it to AE, which may not be perfect, but is at least capable of taking action and of making an objective decision based on the facts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Giano[edit]

GorillaWarfare says on this page (05:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)): "The rest of the Committee can outvote me, if I am indeed an incompetent woman myself." What a sexist, vile, blackmailing comment. In other words she's saying: "agree with me, or you are all misogynists." I would like to know, Where is this stupidity all going to end?

This whole subject of gender and those editors seemingly obsessed with it is descending into a farce. It appears that any man, who the "wimmin" don't like is a legitimate target - so we see Eric Corbett needlessly dragged into the page - who next one wonders? It's been pointed out to me by email that an Arb, Gorilla Warfare is "slagging me off" (horrible expression, but apparently that's what she's doing) on Wikipediocracy for "doxing" her (it's a disgusting insult - I haven't looked at Wikipediocracy, but for the record I have never called her or any other woman a doxy anywhere) and outing her as a woman here on Wikipedia! Sadly, because of this photo of her (uploaded in 2011). I assumed she was female. I suppose it could be a man, but I stupidly thought it unlikely. Whatever, it seems to me that if even Arbs are prepared to fight dirty and take this vendetta to Wikipediocracy to score points, then there's little hope of sorting this in an decent way here. So it seems we can now all take the gloves off prepare for battle. Giano (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Gorilla Warfare [188]. You seem prepared to use any means and media at your disposal to portray yourself as a poor little woman. I suspect you are one tough cookie, whether you are a clever one or not remains to be seen. However, at the moment you and the "sisterhood" are looking all too transparent. Giano (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ GorillaWarfare [189]:Yes, I can see why you would find that embarrassing. You placing that misguided block was rather like the joke of "how many men does it take to change a lighbulb?" Giano (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Interactions at GGTF: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Without commenting on the substance of the accusations, the tone of them is certainly not appropriate. I'm not sure why last year's committee simply endorsed the suggestion of an iban rather than actually implementing one, but the voluntary ban has not been taken up and the situation has not improved. I am inclined to grant this request and enact the iban. @Two kinds of pork: please remember that making allegations without presenting evidence to back them up can be a form of harassment. Please either back up what you say or withdraw your comments. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Nobody endorsed an i-ban. This is what I said. While HIAB might concentrate more on diffs than rhetoric if this arises again in the future, there's not much here for ArbCom.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Lightbreather. Thanks very much for that. Do you know how the split goes for the past six months? And what the corresponding figures for WP:AE are?  Roger Davies ^talk 20:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • HIAB Re yours 13:42, 6 Feb. No, I didn't say that at all.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • TParis and Karanacs Thanks for the data. I haven't had a chance to look at it yet. [TP: Vexatious applies to the nature not the volume.]  Roger Davies ^talk 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lightbreather This diff told you how to proceed, on 18 Dec. I repeated it on 2 Feb.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Thryduulf. Last year's committee made a mess of this case, and as it is becoming apparent, did not solve anything. Courcelles 21:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • !? Neither Lightbreather nor Hell in a Bucket were parties,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was a general comment on how poorly the case was decided. I won't get into every issue, but the topic bans and DS were poorly written. The DS should have matched the scope of the topic bans, which is usual practice. The topic bans should have read more along the lines of "Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from editing any pages or making any edits related to: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process broadly construed to do with these topics." That's the more usual formulation of such things, and the DS being limited strictly to the GGTF is too narrow (though I guess the gender disparity among Wikipedians could be included under GamerGate's "gender-related controversy" authorization.) The GGTF itself was really only the more minor part of the area of conflict here. Courcelles 00:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was no popular clamour for DS during the case; what comment there was was against them, hence the ArbCom-lite ones. Much has changed since though.  Roger Davies ^talk 13:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Why can't the two of you just avoid each other, as suggested by GW last year? Ah well. Inclined to support a two-way i-ban given the current Lightbreather/HIAB interactions don't seem to be contributing much towards building an encyclopedia. Noting the scope of the case, I wonder whether an i-ban could be limited to matters or discussions relating to GGTF/gender, or whether that would create needless work for wikilawyers. Related matters - Lightbreather, an i-ban would not cover interactions outside en-WP, nor would it cover general comments on an issue where those were not in direct or indirect reply to you. And it would be two-way - you could not directly or indirectly reply to anything HIAB posted either. Also to both parties: this page is not the place to relitigate Lightbreather's sockpuppet block which occurred, was appealed, was upheld and has since expired. Absent further evidence of sockpuppetry, its time for both parties to move along on this issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Karanacs: - I can't speak for the others, but I would envisage something like the example at WP:IBAN, with each party prohibited from a) editing the other's user or talkpage; b) replying to te other editor in discussions; c) referring to the other either directly or indirectly; and d) undoing the other's edits. It would not prevent them both contributing to a topic of discussion (eg. GGTF), provided they did not reply to or comment on the othe rperson in any discernable way. Comment on the issue, sure. Comment on the person, no. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: - I'm inclined to agree re vexation. I also agree with Salvio regarding the use of allegations as a conversational weapon. But I still can't see the argument against this: that the overall editing environment would be improved if Lightbreather and HIAB were permitted to comment on issues but forbidden to comment on each other, per the standard example given at WP:IBAN. I appreciate the wikilawyer risk but set that against the chance that this would reduce current sniping. I am, perhaps, an optimist.-- Euryalus (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather:, a quick question, why, given the GGTF element is only part of the evidence presented, did you bring this here rather than AN or ANI? -- Euryalus (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: - sorry if I expressed it unclearly. Point I was trying to make is an I-ban here doesn't flow on to other wikis. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Minor point, I doubt Arbcom can endorse the existence of private club spaces - that would be a policy decision that, if proposed, should be decided either way by the community.

@GRuban:, I agree with your first paragraph, but would be interested in your view as to why this should be dealt with here rather than at ANI? I asked the same question of Lightbreather a bit earlier, but am still not entirely convinced that the current poor interactions and sniping are legitimately part of the GGTF case, and not something for regular community dispute resolution. Despite Lightbreather's repl, I still have a sense that this matter is before ARCA and not ANI because it was considered easier to use this forum and a result was more likely. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lately, I see the word "harassment" being thrown around far too liberally, for my tastes – often as a way to "respond" to criticism. That said, I don't see anything warranting an interaction ban, here, and, accordingly, I shall oppose any such remedy if proposed. I also have to say that, in my opinion, Lightbreater is conducting herself as a vexatious litigant and a forum shopper, which is disruptive. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)'[reply]
• I agree with Thryduulf & Euryalus above. It is clear that interaction between the two editors is not going to be helpful to the encyclopedia; a i-ban is an appropriate way to prevent further escalation. It's not going to solve underlying issues, but it will avoid some of the problems in discussing them. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• So far I'm not convinced that this shouldn't be handled by the community. I'll also note that some of this discussion is predicated on ArbCom having suggested an iban last year, but this appears to be inaccurate. Dougweller (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Just noting that I fully intend to comment here (hopefully tonight or tomorrow). A number of IRL circumstances have combined such that I've had very little time for Wikipedia in the past week or so, so apologies for delays. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A good number of the diffs that Lightbreather posted in the original request do more to convince me that Hell in a Bucket is generally incapable of participating in the gender gap topic area than they do that he cannot interact productively with Lightbreather. I still feel, as I did in December, that Hell in a Bucket and Lightbreather would do well to disengage, and the sexism and insults he included in his statements here further drive that home for me. I do not agree with the other arbitrators who are writing Lightbreather off as a "vexatious litigant" and such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hell in a Bucket: "Before you get too wound up," "Also the attempts to invoke my block log is cute," "Do you notice how she wails..." This doesn't seem sexist? The rest of the Committee can outvote me, if I am indeed an incompetent woman myself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hell in a Bucket: Quite frankly, I don't see why you saying that Lightbreather has been polite is supposed to convince me of your "equalism." Your conduct here has been extremely subpar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hell in a Bucket: Was that really supposed to convince me, or...? GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hell in a Bucket: "women are equal if they choose to be, no man can take that away from them"... Claiming that oppressed people are oppressed because they're not choosing to stand up to it is, quite frankly, ridiculous. That comment does make me revisit my sexism comment, and certainly does not make me think otherwise. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Sitush: In order: No, no, no, I don't know why you think I would discuss contents of a private list, and amendments to existing previous cases are quite clearly within scope. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Giano: That's completely inaccurate. Someone asked me "I would be interested to read some examples of how being known to be a young woman (and undeniably no gorgon) has affected personal interactions that made it more difficult for Gorillawarfare to edit and administrate on Wikipedia, if she is willing to share some." I replied to say "Getting doxxed was a pretty huge one; probably the best example. As for on-wiki, this exchange regarding my block of Giano isn't a bad example." I did not say you doxxed me; that had happened long before and with far more information than just my gender (which was public knowledge by then). I said that the exchange wrt your block was the best on-wiki example of how my gender sometimes affects personal interactions. As for "taking this vendetta to Wikipediocracy," that exchange happened on 19 January, long before this CaAR was posted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Giano: You commented, "Is she some poor, feeble little woman incapable of acting alone? But then of course she needed a third man to help her place the block, so perhaps she is." and compared me to a "beloved aunt, who when arranging flowers, had a butler to hold the vase, a gardener to select and pass her the flowers, a maid to cut the stems, and three friends to admire her handiwork and artistry," and I'm the one portraying myself as a "poor little woman"? Please. That said, I don't actually see what your comment has to do with the case amendment request. If you do decide to continue commenting here, please notice my username doesn't contain a space; your messages are not pinging me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• These two editors plainly need to be separated, as all the evidence points towards their being unable or unwilling to conduct themselves properly. I would support a motion interaction-banning them from one another. AGK [•] 23:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interactions at GGTF: Proposed motions[edit]

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Motion (Hell in a Bucket and Lightbreather interaction ban)[edit]

 Clerk note: With current votes this motion cannot pass. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. As proposer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Guerillero | My Talk 02:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes, this needs to stop now. If there are legitimate issues with the editing of either party, they need to be raised by someone else at this point. Courcelles 02:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   On balance, close enough to GGTF (and arising from it) to narrowly fall within ARCA. Unhelpful conduct includes some evidence of sanction requests as weapons, against an unwillingness to drop the stick. Not enough on either side for more than an I-ban but heading that way if pain persists. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Striking to permit reconsideration of the proposals below. Jurisdictional argument, alternative proposals and particularly some recent goings-on at DR which need review in the context of the draft motion below. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. Appears necessary and within our appropriate role. There's no point putting off action. The length of this discussion shows the incompleteness of our prior decisions,and we should try to finish the work. It is not likely to settle itself, and if the community could deal with it , they would have done so long ago. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   No matter how well meaning, we are still bound by policy and may not overreach. We are not "GovCom".

   • This dispute is only peripherally involved with a previous case. We have jurisdiction over the case, not over every single case page participant.
   • We can deal with "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve". One editor calling another a liar, with no previous dispute resolution, doesn't reach that bar. ("Scope" ArbPol)
   • We can only deal with things by motion when "the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed". That is not the case here. ("Motions" ArbPol)
   • Ibans are only for situations that cannot "be otherwise resolved. No DR has been attempted. (I-ban policy)

    Roger Davies ^talk 06:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I could support this only if Lightbreather was also topic banned from administrative noticeboards and restricted from requesting, suggesting, supporting, opposing, or even hinting at the possibility that another editor may be sanctioned, otherwise we are simply encouraging (and rewarding) vexatious litigations and forum shopping. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. I doubt that a simple i-ban will prevent disruption and there is the great risk that it is likely to provide a springboard for even more of it. If the committee must intervene, the remedy must be far more nuanced than this. To crystallise this further, I'm thinking of Race and intelligence, where related t-bans and i-bans led to some thirty clarification/enforcement processes of one sort or another at WP:AN, WP:AE and WP:ARCA and dragged on for years. So, essentially per Salvio,  Roger Davies ^talk 10:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose. It's all too easy to just say "let ArbCom handle this". It hasn't yet been shown that the community is powerless to deal with this problem. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. To start, I'm not really sure why this is here. If this is requested as an enforcement of discretionary sanctions, AE is the place for that, if it's requested based on general behavior, that's done at AN. I'm not comfortable with the idea that we become a go-to for sanctions to be imposed outside of a case, on editors who weren't even party to the case. I also agree with Salvio that this really isn't sufficient, and that the poor behavior of both the editors up for an interaction ban isn't limited to their interactions with one another. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. If anything, I think Roger's proposal will better help resolve the issues at hand. LFaraone 12:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. What I think we have here is a vexatious litigant who dislikes criticism (Lightbreather) and someone who seems to be going out of their way to fuel discord in the topic area (Hell in a Bucket) who (perhaps almost coincidentally) really cannot interact with each other in a mature fashion. The two do need to be separated, but I'm as yet undecided whether this is the way to do that best or whether we need a different tack (or this plus one or two other motions). I expect to come down for or against this motion when I have thought more about it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

#Abstain leaning toward oppose. I haven't yet been convinced that this is something we should be dealing with rather than the community. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

Arbitrator discussion

• Doug and Chris. I agree with entirely with you about this being primarily a community matter. I simply wonder whether the time it's hung around here has left it too stale to sensibly refer back. If so, what can we do to speed these things up so that we can things refer back within an expedited time-frame? Input welcome,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To move this on, how about something along the following lines? Suggestions welcome,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I'd be happy with this. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft motion (LB and HIAB i-ban)[edit]

Discussion by arbitrators

• How does this work for everyone?  Roger Davies ^talk 14:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Would certainly address some of the issues raised. I do think we're over-complicating this though - these two clearly cant usefully interact, but befor we take any action we need to first determine our authority for doing so. Is there a sufficient case to say the recent poor interactions fall within the GGTF case outcomes? If not, is there evidence that community dispute resolution has unarguably failed? If not, should this go to ANI instead? Either way, is there evidence this is a bad-faith request due to a) forum shopping and b) a deliberate attempt to I-ban every critic? Is there actual harassment going on, or is that just a chilling tactic claim And either of the last two questions are correct, should we address this regardless of the outcome of this specific I-ban request? These and many more questions ... Anyway. Will vote tomorrow, but unlikely to support this proposal as the answers to the questions should result in a clear yes/no on the earlier motion, and this second motion goes beyond my view of the scope of the GGTF case. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I started with deep reservations about us handling this but my position has changed because the issues have escalated during the five days it's been here. Both LB and HIAB (see my talk, this morning) now consent to us resolving this and a motion is the fastest way forward. It has taken us too long to get here, and bouncing a tangled mess to the community is not really right at this late stage. Regarding the DR restriction, having to get an ArbCom imprimatur before any DR participation effectively inoculates LB against subsequent forum shopping claims, so it shouldn't be seen as per se punitive.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, why are 1 and 2 separate rather than the standard mutual interaction ban formula; this one seems somewhat weaker than the usual, though I think the "indirectly" word likely should become part of the standard language? (Also no mention of the standard exceptions, is this intentional?). For Lightbreather, why does she need the positive consent of the Committee as a body? Surely one arb saying this is okay would be sufficient, rather than waiting for eight arbs to make the same determination; are we really going to take an informal poll each time? I feel like part ii of item 3 is too close to us babysitting her; what are we going to do with these notifications, if no consent to participate is required (and that isn't an argument it should be, we're prone to slowness.) Hell in a Bucket has also convinced me he needs a very broad topic ban to get out of the gender gap issue, maybe even as broad as the GamerGate formulation of any gender-related controversy, of which the WP gender gap is one. Courcelles 17:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was put up for discussion not for voting. It's what we put in place to deal with an earlier similar situation. Comments: (i) removing the standard exemptions was deliberate; they're too easily gamed; (ii) with a topic ban in place that excludes DR, we need another mechanism. ArbCom keeping a watching brief satisfies this; (iii) in practice, "the committee" is delegated to, say, the first couple or three arbs to get to it, more eyes than fewer is good on requests to initiate; (iv) the notifications tell us what's happening so we're not caught out; (v) narrow topic bans & broad t-bans? Dunno yet.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I would agree with this, with Courcelles' modification. It's enough of a check; in effect, I'm saying along with Courcelles that we trust each other. `` DGG ( talk )
• I've got one or two things to do first but I'll review this draft in the light of comments and propose it (including the ask/notify ArbCom restrictions) as an enhanced two-way i-ban. Having looked (albeit briefly for now) at the amount of "litigation" already, it is blindingly obvious that the standard one is unlikely to work. The advantage of the ask/notify provision is that it enables us to loosely monitor all aspects. Now on this later today,  Roger Davies ^talk 08:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft motion 2 (LB and HIAB i-ban)[edit]

Discussion by arbitrators

• I've cleaned up the earlier draft and made everything symmetrical. I'd like some feedback on whether to add a GGTF t-ban for both parties, as on the face it, they are way too invested. Such a t-ban would not of course cover the Kaffeeklatsch‎ but for as long as it remained in user space the i-ban would,  Roger Davies ^talk 02:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The DR boards are basically WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:ARCA, WP:AE, not the content ones,  Roger Davies ^talk 02:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Still would rather 1c say ""initiating any dispute resolution process without first (i) emailing arbcom-l and (ii) obtaining by email the prior affirmative consent of an arbitrator to do so". That way it is guaranteed to get circulated among the entire Committee (contacting an arb individually won't work), while cutting down on the bureaucracy of an already bureaucratic sanction. I actually think the symmetrical sanctions are wrong here, I think Hell in a Bucket needs the standard topic ban of the GGTF case, not just from the GGTF and the iban, not the noticeboard restriction; whereas Lightbreather needs the iban and the noticeboard restriction, but not a topic ban at this time. Courcelles 03:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Things to think about certainly.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I've reviewed contribs and I'm not seeing much to justify a topic ban for either of them. They're both alerted already for DS, so that can act as a brake there. I'm still of the view it needs more than one arb reviewing: I'll explain more in my next post,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And I'd move "participating in" from b. to c. If their conduct is being discussed (and, so, they are responding), then they don't have to wait for ArbCom's approval, but a notification is sufficient; if their conduct is not being discussed, I see no reason to treat the initiation of a thread and the participation in it any differently. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• How would this address participation by proxy? Essentially, initiating dispute resolution processes by asking someone else to post in their behalf? -- Euryalus (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been thinking about exactly the same thing but per WP:BEANS won't address it here.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, how is "This remedy may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator;" actually workable, given no uninvolved admin is going to have access to arbcom-l to actually verify the remedies were followed? One of us would have to post in every thread to confirm the remedy was followed. The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced this is just make-work for Arbcom, instead of a solution. Courcelles 18:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution is simple. If the restricted parties wish to participate, they need to do the work. In this instance, by maintaining a log themselves. They need to keep track of which threads they comment in, with a diff of the comment they're responding to, and the time date of the notification to ArbCom. For stuff they initiate, they need timedate of their email to ArbCom, and timedate signature of the ArbCom responder's email. The paperwork will probably make them think twice for some of it, which is all to the good. Any admin can ensure that there are no discrepancies and check that we've had the emails.

    Turning now to your remark about "cutting down on the bureaucracy of an already bureaucratic sanction", I'm surprised this is a factor for you. This current request has preoccupied twenty-five editors over eight days, and spawned 2,000 words. It was initiated by LB, who ignored specific advice about how to proceed. I do not wish to defer another drama-fest but prevent them. So, if the solution is bureaucratic, it's a small price to pay compared to the time-wasted so far. And the approval needs to come from a couple or three arbitrators, not just one, the more eyes on potential easter eggs the better. Anyhow, I'll work up this draft tomorrow morning,  Roger Davies ^talk 23:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am strongly opposed to any restriction of LB's ability to use the DR routes because of a flawed narrative that does not follow the presented evidence at all. Compared to EVERY OTHER PERSON we deal with at arbcom, LB has been a saint; sure she made newbie mistakes, but lets give her some credit. All of her forays into DR have been for two things. (1) To get HiaB away from her because she sees his actions as harassment. (2) Trying to get admins to actually enforce the sanctions against Eric Corbett. I find both to be noble goals. Since the motion seems to eliminate 2, the removal of her from DR pretty much allows Eric to do what he pleases; no one else seems to want to report the infringement of his topic ban to AE. By passing this, we are continuing the saddening trend of removing women from wikipedia who buck the status quo while patting men on the head who do the same thing. I don't like this and consider it sexist. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Harry's right. We need to dispose of this as quickly as possible, and I'm still not seeing a good reason for us to deal with it. If it had been brought up at elsewhere it would probably have been done and dusted by now. We should refer it back to the community and only if they can't deal with it consider it ourselves. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

Enacted - --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 18:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

1.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Dougweller (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. I still see the benefit of an interaction ban between the two parties, and they would both do well to act as if one were in place, but it's clear that there is no consensus within the committee so this request isn't going to go anywhere. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. since the raw topic ban isn't going to pass --Guerillero | My Talk 20:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. I obviously prefer an IBAN between the parties, and hope the community considers imposing it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Like some of the people above, I support an i-ban as the simplest means of keeping these two editors apart - they seem incapable of interacting constructively and there is fault on both sides for that. Against this a fair point is raised that a) their interactions may fall outside any current case and therefore ARCA, and b) community DR has not been exhausted. GRuban rebuts this with a valid appeal against bureaucracy. Others expand the scope of the issue by pointing to issues such as vexation, weaponised complaints, stick-dropping, and some pointless gender warfare. A consequence is the actual i-ban proposal takes on a symbolic meaning which it doesn't deserve. The end results are, (i) that none of the proposed motions are likely to pass; and (ii) the conversation, while interesting, is about wider issues not the matter at hand. The answer is to reduce this to its fundamentals by sticking closely to the "rules", bureaucratic though they may be. Refer this back for community resolution and if it cannot be resolved there, consider it again as a motion (and not a GGTF ARCA). -- Euryalus (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. If I was to support something it would need to be in a package, but I'm not that convinced by anything we've seen so far, and roughly looking at arbitrator opinion we couldn't find a solid consensus. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Begrudging support. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Unless something radically changes in the interactions between Lightbreather and Hell in a Bucket, this accomplishes nothing more than kicking the can down the road. The first motion made sense as a quick, simple solution to the immediate problem. The second (drafts) were bureaucratic messes that would have caused everyone more problems and work than benefits. We have a simple, and quite frankly harmless solution to stop the drama; there are enough eyes watching this dispute that these two don't need to be in each others' way, others would intervene withotu the history if there were problems. Also, I don't think we've ever passed a formal motion to close something at ARCA without action. I do not want this to become a precedent for that. Courcelles 18:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. They need it and we can do it. And in particular, anything we can do to decrease tensions surrounding this issue we should try to do. The procedural issues and the formal jurisdictional issues are secondary. We're not a formal court. We're not strictly bound by precedent. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   The core dispute between LB and HIAB has got better not worse. They've said their piece and are moving on. The escalation by others will not addressed by an out-of-process i-ban.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Initiated by BU Rob13 at 03:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Interactions at GGTF arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope) - February 2015

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Motion: Interactions at GGTF (amend scope) - February 2015

• Request that the Arbitration Committee rescind discretionary sanctions in the topic area, as amended by the second section of the above motion

Statement by BU Rob13[edit]

Continuing with the theme of cleaning up old DS before the new year, this DS has only been applied twice since it first passed in December 2014, and only to establish interaction bans that arguably could have been handled by the community. The latest application of DS was in April 2015. Based on that alone, I believe the topic bans and other remedies in this case were sufficient to handle disruption in this topic area, but I also noticed that the defined topic area here strongly overlaps with Gamergate. Discretionary sanctions in this case cover "any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed". Gamergate covered, among other things, "all edits about, and all pages related to ... (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy". The topic area of the gender disparity among Wikipedians and attempts to correct it forms a subset of the topic area covered by the Gamergate DS. Even if discretionary sanctions are still needed in this narrow topic area, the remedy here is redundant to the remedy that remains active in Gamergate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This could also be accompanied by an expansion of Gamergate DS to all gender-related "issues" if it's thought that "disputes and controversies" don't cover the GGTF, which probably wouldn't be a bad expansion. I'm not convinced it's needed, though. I would consider the gender gap on Wikipedia as a whole to be a "controversy" of sorts. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker[edit]

GGTF - at least has the virtue of making DS about gender easy to find (and, perhaps a bit easier to understand for the non gamer), that GG does not. Could you merge? 'Gamergate and/or Gender Discretionary Sanctions'? That would leave intact, tracing the history. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Interactions at GGTF: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Interactions at GGTF: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• I'm not fully convinced that part b) of the Gamergate sanctions wholly overlaps the GGTF sanctions (given that not all edits about the topics in the GGTF sanction area necessarily relate to disputes or controversies), but I do think that given the disuse and the wide overlap it would make sense to remove this as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not support broadening the Gamergate sanctions to "issues". GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I am against rescinding, because the overlap here is only partial, and I am against replacing "disputes and controversies" with "issues" because that, IMHO, would extend the scope of DS too much. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Against the change to "issues", undecided on rescinding. I think this is one of those cases where the fact that they haven't been used may suggest they're working (whereas I usually think that's a "see, my tinfoil hat keeps the government agents away!" argument ;). There's no such thing as a "safe space" on a public wiki, but there's something to be said for a mechanism to quietly remove disruptive or tendentious participants from a discussion area specifically for a normally-underrepresented audience. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm against rescinding the GGTF discretionary sanctions as I don't believe that the Gamergate sanctions completely cover this. I agree with OR's analysis that the sanctions not being used suggests that they are working. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with OR here and oppose replacing "disputes and controversies" with "issues" --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also not happy with changing to "issues" and agree with Alanscottwalker that GGTF is easier to find. Unless it can be shown that the sanctions are actually damaging editing in the area, I don't think there's a case for removing them. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by MattLongCT at 01:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Manning naming dispute arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 15

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

• MattLongCT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Remedy 15

• Remedy 15 of Manning naming dispute is amended to read:

15) The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) "all edits about, and all pages related to... any gender-related dispute or controversy... broadly construed" continue to remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Gamergate case, not this one.

Statement by MattLongCT[edit]

I am seeking a clarification and proposed amendment to Manning concerning its current relevance in regards to enforceable actions. The case in question has not had a formal amendment since 2013. Currently, the case is in a grey area since it cites Sexology even though the case had its discretionary sanctions since rescinded. This has not been noted anywhere in the page for Manning.

However, it is listed in Wikipedia:General sanctions#Obsolete sanctions. Separately, Template:Ds/alert says:
Pages dealing with transgender issues including Chelsea Manning... and Manning naming dispute) ^{(superseded by the GamerGate decision.)} (Gamergate never explicitly did this according to its case page.)

I fail to see any consistency for what the exact status of Manning is supposed to be. In resolving this, my proposal is that the remedies continue forward with only a slight amendment to show that the case now serves as a clarification of Gamergate. This field of debate still has much activity, so in my view having this exact case to fall back on would be preferable. Gamergate did not once reference LGBT+ issues specifically, so I do not see the problem of having this Manning serve to supplement it.

For the record, this is my first time ever posting in WP:ArbCom, so that might be nice to know. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 04:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SilkTork[edit]

It would be simpler to do that; I would agree. However, my preference is for an amendment over a rescision. One could reasonably interpret GamerGate as not including transgender or preferred pronoun debate. Maybe it's just me who has noticed it, but I don't think that Manning has been applied much since Gamergate was issued. For example, I took a look at discussions such as this one, and I can't seem to find a single instance where a person was formally notified of GamerGate DS (including users named in GamerGate). I did find instances of users being notified of the Sexology Discretionary Sanctions. For that particular discourse, I could not find a single instance of GG/DS applied during that Early June 2015 period (I found one GG/DS alert from months later).

In my view, if the committee felt that Sexology was too ambiguous in 2013 to find a need for Remedy 15 of Manning, then I would say that should go double for GamerGate. It's more broad than Sexology sure, but that is why this clarification is needed and would ensure that it is applied properly and consistently. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 22:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Statement by MJL[edit]

I have been keeping up with the statements made in this request. I have begun to notice that discussion has drifted away from my original question somewhat. Therefore, I am presenting this secondary statement.

First of all, in response to Katie's question, I am grateful of BU Rob13 for noting their December 2016 Request. However, I will state that I intentionally did not include in this request any mention of nor make any request related to GGTF. My intention was simply to clean up the issues associated with the inconsistent application of DS/alerts in LGBT-related topics.

Originally, my participation in this RfC brought me to this conclusion. To elaborate: though there is a gender-related dispute concerning the Matrix, the DS Talk page template has not been placed. I found this odd for such a controversial dispute.

Furthermore, and not to sound like a Wikilawyer, it is of my belief that by removing Remedy 15, the committee would give credence to those that might corrupt the committee's intentions for doing so. This could falsely give credence to the belief that Transgender-related topics are no longer controversial and don't fall under the DS regime anymore. There are certainly some parliamentary procedural viewpoints that may justify this view. I would rather keep Remedy 15 as it is rather than seeing it be striked in all honesty. It just leads to more questions of "intent of ArbCom." I primarily just want to avoid those disingenuous discussions before they really come up.

Penultimately, I will say that if the committee was to move to formally supercede GGTF, then they would also most likely have to amend or rescind Remedy 1.1 of Arbitration enforcement 2 which cites that case (more specifically this motion). The whole thing is rather complicated, so that is why I sticking with my original request. Otherwise we dig way too deep into the weeds here.

Finally, Guerillero just taught me a new idiom: Tempest in a teapot. I would say that would be a fair criticism to apply to this request, yeah. This is really just glorified housekeeping.

Thank you all! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 23:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Opabinia regalis[edit]

I do agree with their concerns. Aesthetically, GGTF is a nicer case to put this all under, yet Gamergate was the one of the two to outgrow its original jurisdiction for whatever reason. However, we could just rename the case something like GGTF 2 or Gender-related Disputes if we are so inclined. Just a thought. I am happy with the current motion as it stands either way. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 16:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seren Dept[edit]

The GamerGate scope seems purposely broad enough to cover earlier cases like Manning or GGTF, and similar issues in the future. I don't think anyone would win an argument claiming that transgender-related issues are outside of that scope, though I suppose it would be harmless to explicitly include them. I think the related DS are regularly applied and I would guess that editors in those areas are widely aware. Maybe warnings are not logged or aren't where you're looking, or maybe I'm wrong and it could be more widely publicized.

I guess narrowness is likable in sanctions, but for this I don't think it would be an improvement. Seren_Dept 03:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alfie[edit]

I support this change - it doesn't make much difference to the way this remedy will be enforced, but nonetheless it's worth being explicit about these things. There are bad faith editors who will attempt to adhere to the word of the sanction and not the spirit - may as well tighten down the wording to match the intention. -- a. ^{get in the spam hole | get nosey} 10:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero[edit]

Seems like a storm in a teacup to me. Manning didn't create any sanctions; it was only reminding people of the sanctions that were already in place at the time of the case. The sanctions that were rescinded in the Sexology motion were de facto recreated when we voted to impose the GamerGate sanctions less than a year later. If people strongly care, you could redirect people to GamerGate to make it covered de jure, but that seems to be at the discretion of admins at AE on a particular request. As for GGTF, the sanctions 100% GamerGate sanctions.

The gender gap on Wikipedia is indisputably falls under any gender-related dispute or controversy. Since DS have been standardized for close to a decade and logging has happened on the same page for 5 years, deciding if the sanction should be logged in section A or section B is pretty much the only confusion that can happen. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re Manning name dispute)[edit]

MattLongCT's idea to rename the case something like "Gender-related disputes" is a good one and not without precedent - "Footnoted Queries" was renamed by motion to "Editing of Biographies of Living Persons" when it outgrew it's original scope. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: As an alternative to renaming Gamer Gate or shoehorning this into GGTF you (the committee) could open a new case "Gender-related disputes" for the sole purposes of collating and renaming the existing sanctions. It would also provide a suitable and clear venue for future clarification or amendments requests to expand or contract the topic area covered or the sanctions applied without implying such were at all related to either Gamer Gate or the GGTF. This could of course be done (almost) equally well after the currently proposed motion passes ("almost" as it would require two lots of paperwork rather than one). Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Manning naming dispute: Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Recuse for this request for clarification based on my comment above. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manning naming dispute: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

• Awaiting further statements, but this seems like a straightforward fix. I agree that transgender issues would fall under the GamerGate DS. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15 doesn’t really need closing because it isn’t a DS authorization. It’s more just a reminder that there are DS out there that apply. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I invite statements on whether we should rescind DS in the GGTF case in favor of a similar remedy specifying that everything related to the GGTF is within the scope of GamerGate. That would put all gender-related disputes under one roof at the AELOG, which may be desirable. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KrakatoaKatie: For history, I asked for GGTF to be rescinded in favor of falling under GamerGate back in 2016. At the time, the Committee believed there wasn't 100% overlap, which I continue to disagree with. The "gender gap" in editors as a whole is certainly a controversy, in my opinion, and DS are purposefully construed broadly to cover any possible edge cases by association. There was also some question about continuity at the time, but no-one ever considered the possibility of redirecting the old "code" for GGTF to GamerGate as we recently did for the Balkans. We could even further make "gender" a code for GamerGate in the relevant templates, if we wished, to make it super easy to find them. I'll type up a motion tonight for both of these. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think re-naming cases years after they're closed is poor form and likely to make historical references to the case confusing. Let's just add "gender" as a code that targets GamerGate at {{Ds/alert}} and be done with it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree this needs fixing. Would it be simpler and cleaner to do with Manning as was done with Sexology? That is, close Remedy 15, and state that gender-related disputes are covered under Gamergate: [190]. SilkTork (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with SilkTork that closing Remedy 15 and moving these disputes to Gamergate is cleanest. And I've often wondered why GGTF and Gamergate haven't been moved together. Katie^talk 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry, I've fallen behind on ARCA lately, so this is a little late. I see the point here - there's lots of overlap between cases - but I'm not sure that consolidating everything under GamerGate is a good solution. In fact I dislike the idea of ever referencing GamerGate for any purpose other than talking about GamerGate. If I had my druthers (well, does anyone ever get just one druther?) I'd consolidate everything at GGTF, rather than referring all gender-related disputes to a page about a very specific, narrow individual example. (OK, yes, GGTF is also a specific example, but at least it's our own example.) Also, these issues get into the media every so often (a recent example) - more often than many other content-oriented disputes that have come to arbcom - which is not a context in which reanimating GamerGate-related disputes is desirable. IMO if we're going to reorganize these sanctions anyway, I'd prefer to stop giving unnecessary prominence to that specific incident. Opabinia regalis (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Manning naming dispute[edit]

For these motions there are 8 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Miniapolis 16:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Noting that we don't have to modify other remedies from other cases that refer to the Interactions at GGTF discretionary sanctions, because they didn't refer to the use of those discretionary sanctions to impose new sanctions. That was a problem unique to the Manning naming dispute case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Worm^TT(talk) 11:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Katie^talk 21:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Windmill-tilting, I suppose. My issue is with the status quo, not the specific proposed modifications, but I dislike letting the opportunity pass by for fixing the objectionable feature of pointing all "gender-related disputes" to GamerGate. I don't want to rename that case (it got media attention in its own right, so a rename really would be confusing, even with redirects and whatnot). Pointing everything back to GGTF seems like the least-worst solution. I really, strongly believe that it is inappropriate to be directing new editors, in a topic area where we know there are specific recruiting efforts on that subject and where we know our miscues tend to attract media attention, to GamerGate-related material. But I have trouble putting my exact objections into words - "it's too Internetty" is kind of unsatisfying - and nobody else seems to mind, so maybe I'm the crazy one? Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

1. AGK ■ 18:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments