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

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

Strange wording

This wording is in what I presume is a boiler plate template delivered by ARB clerks to editors who are temporarily interaction-banned under the diktat of an arb-case temporary injunction.

"They may comment on allegations of off-wiki misconduct only by email and such emails must be directed only to the Arbitration Committee."

I would welcome enlightenment as to who the editor is forbidden from emailing on the subject, by the plain meaning of the text it is the whole world except the committee. I do not see that the committee has any such power, nor would I imagine it would aspire to having such a power.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: Upon review this wording is unique to the Lightbreather case and has been posted in five places:

1. User talk:Lightbreather
2. User talk:Scalhotrod
3. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard
4. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed decision
5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Give that I will move this section to the talk page of the proposed decision in Lightbreather.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• L235 and Liz, the PD page says there four inactive arbs on this case; this page says there are two. Correction, please? Lightbreather (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Lightbreather, I'm updated the AC template so the Proposed Decision page reflects the current status of the arbitrators. If you do a hard refresh, you'll see that the numbers on the page have changed to reflect that there are just two inactive admins for this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The length of this case is causing me a lot of stress

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others (15 others)
  • Opened: 23 March 2015
  • Closed: 10 May 2015
  • Length: 47 days
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others (5 others)
  • Opened: 30 April 2015
  • Closed: 3 June 2015
  • Length: 34 days
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather (no others - despite numerous requests to add)
  • Opened: 3 May 2015
  • Closed: No.
  • Length so far: 48 days.

This case had a 3-week Evidence phase and a 2-week Workshop phase, and the Proposed decision phase has already been pushed from 9 to 15 days. While pondering the proposed decisions and their votes, I hope the committee members keep in mind how much stress the length of this case alone (independent of evidence that the committee has forbidden me to discuss) has caused me. Lightbreather (talk) 21:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Lightbreather, the Proposed Decision will be posted on Monday. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller et al: It has been 61 days since Karanacs requested this case.[3] Can you please, please wrap this up? Lightbreather (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Djembayz' section

• @Djembayz: Thank you! Not only for what you've written here, but on the Evidence talk page,[4] where you made two points that I agree are key to this case: 1. The importance of the events of last July, and 2. The implications this case could have for those who seek interaction bans as a way to address harassment.
• @Roger Davies: We have already banned half a dozen or so accounts and investigations are still on-going.

Which accounts? I'm only aware of one.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

1. Because nothing was posted here or on my talk page about it, the block that was imposed on me on June 17[5] was extended, and my talk-page access was blocked too,[6] in response to my response[7] to the original block. I think the committee has been a little block happy with me while ignoring edits by other involved parties.

2. Consider that Thryduulf placed a 2-way interaction ban on Scalhotrod[8] and me, but when, less than 24 hours later, Scalhotrod posted this:[9]

@Karanacs:, I agree, but until yesterday I was simply staying away, not compiling lists[10]. But given circumstances, I didn't see any reason for LB to come to my Talk page and start in as if the ArbCom had never started. LB is still as predictable as ever....

not a thing was done about it.

3. Regarding that 2-way ban, it was placed on Scalhotrod and me "stemming from the edits made to the National Rifle Association" (June 3-5). And although that might not appear to be related to this case it is and here is how: I was told that private evidence that I submitted was considered in imposing the ban. However, the only evidence that I have submitted privately has to do with this case. Therefore, although the evidence I submitted has nothing to do with my edits to the NRA article, Thryduulf considered that non-related evidence when imposing the ban, so the ban is related to this case and I am discussing it here. And since the iban has nothing to do with allegations of off-wiki harassment, I am placing this protest here, for the record.

There was nothing in my interactions with Scalhotrod that warranted a 2-way ban, and yet I am told once again that "Ibans are not necessarily a reflection on those they are imposed upon." This case was started because I have too many ibans (at least according to Karanacs and others). If an iban is no reflection on those they're imposed upon, would Sitush have made an ultimatum to quit Wikipedia if he were banned from commenting about or interacting with me?

4. The fact is, I'd rather not have ibans, but if some editors think it's appropriate to hound other editors and cast aspersions about them, and others don't feel obliged to ignore their hounding and gossiping, ibans are the only other option - short of quitting. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had intended to leave this as private, but as you keep bringing it up on-wiki I will respond to you here. I made the interaction ban two-way because I felt it was not unlikely that you would post allegations against Scalhotrod on-wiki to which he would not be able to respond. As you were later blocked for violating the injunction in this case by posting allegations on wiki I feel that the two-way interaction ban was the correct course of action and I will not be reversing that decision however many times and in however many forums you ask. You may appeal it at AE, like any other discretionary sanction, after the injunction in this case expires (unless any aspect of the final decision in this case prohibits that). Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I intended to keep it private, too, until you deleted Scalhotrod's comment. I think that was the wrong thing to do, and since you wouldn't restore the comment, I brought my complaint here, so that the way this was handled is known to followers of this case, and not just to the committee. (My request to restore it didn't fall under the injunction, as it had nothing to do with allegations of off-wiki harassment.)

I did not and do not feel that I violated the injunction, as I explained previously. Obviously, some committee members disagreed. Also, I believe I have only asked you once to consider a 1-way ban and only asked you once to restore Scal's comment. My only purpose in mentioning them here, as I've already said, is to have a record of my requests and of your answers. If I have asked either of these things of you more than once, I apologize. As I posted yesterday, the stress of the length of this case - and the added difficulty of the injunction - has made it increasingly hard to participate. (I assume the committee did not mean for the injunction to be a full-blown gag order.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hat/hab request

Please hat/hab the Sitush and Carrite sections. Carrite used his to comment in general about case length. Sitush used his to talk about his experiences and opinions, and to cast aspersions about me for the umpteenth time. If he thinks that he has evidence of me breaking policy, he should have presented it in the evidence phase. Lightbreather (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding what was hat/hab'd in my "Response to Djembayz' section": The first two items were about this case, not general discussion. Please un-hat/hab. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Davies, I forgot to ping you in the above requests. Would you please hat/hab the Sitush and Carrite sections and un-hat/hab the first two items in my "Response to Djembayz' section"? Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ILLEGIT comments, please

L235 and Liz, per WP:ILLEGIT would you please delete the post by 2600:1003:B443:48D7:CDB1:7F70:9A09:2104? Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather, in this case, the arbitrators have taken the lead in deciding which comments are hatted and which they choose to respond to. But they are paying attention to this talk page and will take action they feel is necessary. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly hope this is addressed. My block in November was for participating at the GGTF ArbCom while logged out, and a big deal was made of how wrong that is. To treat this differently would be a double-standard. Lightbreather (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The committee are aware and will take action as appropriate if this is a user editing while logged out. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the comment. Apologies for missing this section before. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SlimVirgin's section

@SlimVirgin: The standard of proof being required is more than "more likely than not." Without getting into the details of the number and kinds of evidence that I submitted to the functionaries, I asked the porn site where the photos were posted (copying Maggie Dennis and Philippe Beaudette) to give me the IP address of the user, but they (Maggie and Philippe) were apparently told it would not be done without a court order. I tried several avenues to get such an order. Eff.org says they only do "impact litigation." Others only work on sexual harassment cases in PAID work environments. The last place I tried said they might help, but not pro bono. It was going to cost me $1,000 just to start the process.

And you're right, I was targeted because I edit Wikipedia. The posts in question were titled "Wikipedia editor Lightbreather." I wish the WMF would act, but I can't make them, can I? (Rhetorical question, of course.) Now I am going to spend the evening with my husband, and hope that I get a decent night's sleep tonight. Lightbreather (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Regarding Seraphimblade's mention of "joe jobs": while I agree they are something that must be taken into consideration in general, in this case - without getting into details - the age of the accounts involved and other distinctive factors make a joe job unlikely. Lightbreather (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove

Request a 1-way IBAN between HIAB and GW

Proposed principles, findings, etc.

• Please correct factual error re 19:32, 12 April 2014 diff under 3.2.3.1
  • I created an article titled Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.
  • Gaijin42 renamed it Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
  • Gaijin42, Scalhotrod, and other pro-gun editors do not want any WP article to have "assault weapons ban" in the title, except for the expired-in-2004 federal assault weapons ban. For example, see the history of Assault weapons legislation in the United States, which was created as Assault weapon(s) ban.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've mentioned this in the finding. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:DramaMonger

Could someone please do something about this: User talk:DramaMonger? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to real life delays for some of the drafters, the Lightbreather proposed decision will be 72 hours late. Apologies to all concerned. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision will be a further three days late. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further matters have been raised, which will likely delay things by another day or two.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision posting has been delayed and is now scheduled to appear on June 26. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

??Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the answers given in #Chess section below. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a little song about the case, sung to the tune of Song that never ends:

This is the case that never ends

It just goes on and on my friends

We're all waiting patiently for this case to close

But we'll be waiting here forever 'cuz we know....

(Repeat)

Sing it with me now! (This is meant entirely in good fun and no insult is intended). Ca2james (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting the proposed decision. Proposed remedy 3.3.5 (Reverse topic ban) was what I was thinking of during the workshop phase but this remedy is much clearer than what I wrote. The volume of emails you all dealt with during this case and the other issues is mind-boggling; between that and trying to figure out how wide the scope should be, plus RL concerns, it's no wonder that this took a long time. Ca2james (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on proposed decision

Roger Davies How does Principle #10 interact with WP:NLT. I've seen several discussions during this case regarding the harassment against LB that implied legal action being taken/proposed. NLT is usually brought up in content disputes (BLP, PR, etc). If there is an exception to NLT for responding to harassment (which I would not disagree with) - It may be worth clarifying such so as to avoid disputes as to if certain legal action is bannable or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my favourite ... arriving at consensus about a tangential hypothetical :)  Roger Davies ^talk 21:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank Djembayz for her posts (diffs: [22][23][24][25]). I don't expect them to comment, but I'm pinging LilaTretikov (WMF), Siko (WMF) and AWang (WMF) so they can read them. I'm also pinging some GGTF members who have commented on similar issues: BoboMeowCat, EvergreenFir, Gobonobo, Smallbones, The Vintage Feminist, Rosiestep, Tony1. As Djembayz wrote, DefendEachOther matters. One of the problems is that, if there has been less-than-ideal behaviour from the person before the commmittee, we don't want to look as though we're defending it, which means we don't speak up and the point gets missed. In addition, it's very time-consuming and it's never clear that spending the time will lead to anything good.

The way the committee and community handles dispute-resolution involving women is causing huge concern. What was needed in this case were early interaction bans between Lightbreather and the men who were pursuing her. My first encounter with her was when she arrived at the gender-gap task force and was promptly followed by an editor with a fair amount of pornography in his contributions. It was obvious from previous interactions that he had followed her. This should not be regarded as okay. We should be allowed to keep a space like that free of issues likely to cause women unease. That would be obvious in professional life and academia, but for some reason it's not obvious on Wikipedia.

Lightbreather's efforts to defend herself gave her a reputation for being litigious, so that each time she asked for help, it was "oh, it's her again." Even the ArbCom refused a badly needed interaction ban between her and one of the men involved in this. Instead, her increasingly poor response to the situation became the focus.

One committee member who posted insulting material about her did not remove himself from the case. The committee lifted the few interaction bans that had been imposed, so that those people could post evidence and join in the workshop, which gave them another platform. The committee extended the evidence period, despite the stress the case has caused Lightbreather (since early May), and has now missed its own deadlines for wrapping things up. Lightbreather has been receiving abusive emails and having fake images of herself posted on porn sites. She must be hanging on by the skin of her teeth.

I know it's easy to criticize from the sidelines, and I thank the people on the committee who understand these issues and want to do the right thing. But a conversation needs to take place somewhere so that this doesn't keep happening. I don't think that conversation can be held on Wikipedia, because the people causing the trouble, and the people who don't understand it, will join in and others won't if they do. I'm starting to think that a few Wikipedians should try to raise money to have an outside body investigate this and report to the Foundation. Black editors being harassed by white editors would not have been put through this. We have to take sexism as seriously as we do racism. The first step is to recognize when it's happening, and also to recognize the effect it has on the targets, instead of dismissing women who stand up for themselves as troublemakers. Sarah ^(talk) 23:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know this relates only to a small portion of your comment, but it is an important point that needs reiterating. Lightbreather has been receiving abusive emails and having fake images of herself posted on porn sites. We (arbitrators and functionaries) have been and are conducting extensive and detailed investigations into these issues - and these investigations are one of the principle reasons for the length of time this case has taken. We have indefinitely blocked multiple accounts as a result of these investigations, but it has to date not been possible for us to identify the person (or persons) responsible for the images on porn sites with the standard of proof required to take action. We have been sharing the information we have as a result of our investigations with the WMF, but as of the most recent time they advised us of the progress of their independent investigation they to had not been able to identify anybody to the standard of proof they required to take action. It must also be borne in mind that the ultimate sanction that we can hand out is an indefinite ban from the English Wikipedia. We have no powers over what any person does on any place on the internet or what emails anybody sends (other than those sent using the email user facility on the English Wikipedia). We (the arbitration committee) are unable to take any legal actions regarding any harassment received or perpetrated by Wikipedians, for example we do not have the power to require any site to take down any content they host - we can ask but if the site involved says "no" there is nothing more we can do. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, Thryduulf. As soon as sexist or racist harassment is spotted – months before we reach the porn images and nasty emails stage – it should be dealt with decisively (broken-window syndrome). A white racist following a black editor to a project addressing systemic bias would be topic-banned/blocked/banned immediately. But sexist editors following women to GGTF are barely noticed. The women have to point it out and keep pointing it out, and soon become the villains of the piece, because they're not assuming good faith. This gives anyone wanting to harass them the green light.

As for the off-wiki harassment, one editor acknowledged sending some of the emails. He is now banned, but he had been baiting women openly on Wikipedia. He almost wasn't sanctioned at all during the GGTF case. It was only toward the end of the case that a proposal was posted that he be topic-banned, but only topic-banned, while two women were banned outright.

Regarding the images, I appreciate that it must be difficult, but perhaps the website(s) on which the images were posted can help. Also, can you say something about what standard of proof you're requiring, i.e. is it higher than "more likely than not"? Sarah ^(talk) 01:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, Thryduulf's comment was about the WMF's investigation; we cannot provide further clarity there, but perhaps Philippe (WMF) or Mdennis (WMF) can. Regarding assistance from the sites on which the content was posted: they declined to provide any information in absence of a court order. LFaraone 04:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor extension to LFarone's point, any such court order would need to be brought be LB herself. Whether the WMF would be able to help her, if she chose(s) to proceed along that route, is something I understand the WMF's legal team were looking in to (as there are many individual factors in cases like this, such as the legal jurisdiction of the website(s) and of the victim(s)). What, if any, legal help that can be offered, is a private matter between WMF and the editor(s) concerned that arbcom is not and should not be a party to. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the specifics of a particular investigation, like LFaraone says, we cannot provide specific details. So far as general principles, ArbCom is not a court. We don't have specific standards of evidence. However, given the ease with which a joe job could be done with offsite harassment, I really don't think "more likely than not", i.e., 50.0000001%, would be the correct one. I could easily make it look like anyone who I don't like or have a dispute with was "more likely than not" responsible for some type of harassment, including using various services by which the IP it was done from would be untraceable or even where the location (if known) is located near to the victim. I wouldn't do that, as it would be unethical, but some people would, and would under that standard easily get opponents site banned by doing so. The standard with offsite harassment is generally that we must be conclusively sure that the offsite harasser can be linked to the Wikipedia account sanctioned for it. In some cases, it won't be possible to make such a link. I wish it were always possible but it is not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LFaraone, Thryduulf and Seraphimblade. In cases I'm aware of, websites disclosed IP addresses when the women themselves asked. Lightbreather, did you do that, and assuming they said no, would you consider applying for a court order? Thryduulf, is it correct that the Foundation couldn't apply for one? It would send a signal that it intends to enforce its terms of use (prohibited activities include "[e]ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking ...") [26] Other sites were used for the harassment but LB was targeted because she edits Wikipedia. Sarah ^(talk) 21:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is it correct that the Foundation couldn't apply for [a court order]?. I don't know, you need to ask this question of the Foundation legal team (pinging Philippe) not us. It is definitely not something that ArbCom can do, and we have no role in saying what the Foundation can or should do. I know you are asking in good faith, but this is not the venue to talk about issues in general. W (ArbCom) are not privy to the discussions the legal team are having between themselves, nor any discussions they are having with Lightbreather (and even if we were we almost certainly couldn't share that knowledge publicly), so there is very little about this specific case we can say. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Thryduulf, I was responding to your post above: " ... any such court order would need to be brought [by] LB herself."

The point for the committee is that this could have been nipped in the bud by banning more editors during the GGTF case, or handing out interaction bans when Lightbreather requested them (or better still without her asking). In February the committee decided not to grant one of the IBANs. I objected to this at the time. It then lifted the bans that were in place, so that people could join this case, which provided a new platform and made LB even less able to defend herself. People who have not been at the centre of that kind of attention may not realize how destablizing it can be.

There's a concern that the committee is labouring under the fallacy of the perfect victim. Sarah ^(talk) 22:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comments regarding court orders reflect my understanding, which may or may not be correct.

Regarding the "perfect victim" we do not expect anyone to be any such thing, but we do make it clear that everybody is responsible for their own actions regardless of the reasons for those actions. You have made your other points here already, repeating them does not help anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Then collapse the proposal part, not the entire section. My other comments are about the proposed decision. ArbCom must consider the broader picture here, whether it wants to or not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice if I got a response. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this case still open? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The case is still open because it has not been completed. We are actively working on the proposed decision, which baring more interruptions (on or off wiki) should progress quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Roger Davies regarding the non discrimination policy you mentioned in Wolfiwitz's section, where might a community member initiate discussion about it on their own if the final decision does not contain such a recommendation? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 12:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) are good venues for that sort of discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on proposed decision by EF

• Regarding 3.1.9 - What should be done when harassment is dismissed by admins? Too often I've seen users essentially told to suck it up or grow a thicker skin, especially regarding sexist harassment.
• Regarding 3.1.10 - This seems to shift the burden to the victim. While DENY is fine, serious harassment should be dealt aggressively by those able to minimize its impact (admins, OSers, WMF folks).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by EvergreenFir (talk • contribs) 00:21, 13 July 2015 UTC (UTC)

We can't set policy; we've requested community participation in defining such a policy at 3.3.7 and 3.3.8. LFaraone 00:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LFaraone: Yeah, I finally got to that part. It seems rather insufficient to be honest. I worry that practical advice and guidance from the community will be things like don't provoke people and don't be so sensitive and other "advice" we often hear given to women regarding sexual harassment. Perhaps the committee can make a section 3.3.9 with something to this effect:

Administrators urged - Admins are urged to take allegations of serious harassment and sexual harassment extremely seriously and, if substantiated, to use tools they deem appropriate to swiftly and strongly deal with the harasser.

I'm not much good at wording, but I'd love to see something to doesn't put the burden on the victim or the community (which has shown itself rather incapable of dealing with harassment like this and doesn't have the tools to deal with the harasser).

One thought too: the gendered nature of this harassment has been effectively removed from the proposed decision. This was sexual harassment. Wikipedia has a gender problem and ignoring the gendered nature of the harassment furthers that problem by allowing it to remain unaddressed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this seems to be another situation where the general issues of civility and gender gap are being "tagged on" to a more specific situation ... Many of LB's behaviours have had nothing to do with either and she is the person who widely advertised both on- and off-wiki the particularly nasty posting of images etc, including direct links. There is a point where, however frustrated, attacked and stressed one might rightly feel, common sense has to play its part: report the details privately to the WMF, to ArbCom, to the specific organisations that offer advice about online harassment etc but don't go feeding the jackals here, at Wikipediocracy, at Reddit and elsewhere. That is one of the major lessons of the recent deplorable incidents and I think it is a strategy that the community could perhaps try to find a way to advertise more prominently. ArbCom could say as much in the PD, although they cannot enforce it.

FWIW, you don't have to be non-male to be harassed on the internet and I'm still not sure whether or not turning it into a gendered issue will do other than attract more trolls. I've been harassed horrendously and in my case a lot of it is still live and reveals far more personally identifying material than I think has happened in LB's case (no, I'm not providing links but in my case it has in fact affected my real life, as some may confirm). Similarly, if it wasn't for the constant repetition of a misrepresented claim regarding the word "cunt" by LB herself, another Wikipedian would not now find their reputation perhaps quite as tarnished as some think it to be - that word, and the circumstances of use, have been raised far, far more by her and thus have drawn attention in ways more damaging to everyone. It is, indeed, an example of the vexatious manner that is at the heart of LB's behaviour, and arguably constitutes a form a harassment in itself because a misrepresentation told often enough does take on the appearance of truth. Sometimes, in cyberspace as in real life, you have to let things go eventually and timing is everything. I'm not always good at doing that; alas, LB seems to be far worse even than me.

I suppose some of it is about tolerance levels but, believe me, I understand the stress perhaps better than almost everyone who reads this will ever know because in my case I have tended to deal with the worst of it through entirely legitimate backchannels. WMF have been extremely helpful to me but there is a limit to what anyone can do, justas if you choose to get in a car then you take the risk of being wiped out by some other idiot road user. Sure, you can educate users of the road to be more considerate, law-abiding etc but there will always be some idiots and enforcement of the ultimate sanctions will always be post facto. That applies to any situation, any community. - Sitush (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These all good points that are being considered by the drafters and the rest of the committee. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an IP should revert an arbitrator. That said, the original comment was not "trolling", as claimed in GW's edit summary. Yes, the original IP may have trolled elsewhere - whether or not it was the same operator - but the comment here was valid and had stuck for around five days before being removed. And note it was removed, not just hatted. I'm told that Kevin Gorman privately asked GW to do this but I still don't understand why. It would probably be easier if we did consider changing the rules of engagement so that anons could not participate in situations such as this but I realise that is unlikely ever to happen.

And before someone hats this, as I suspect will happen, please note that I am referring to a perfectly valid opinion that has effectively been suppressed with a misleading rationale. That is, my main point is specific to this case and not a generalised one. - Sitush (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the edit because the editor was quite clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute based on the previous edit. I see that Reaper Eternal has since denied an unblock filed on their behalf, and commented that "checkuser indicates that this IP has been used for abusive account creation". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So clearly NOTHERE that no-one bothered about it for five days until Kevin raised the issue with you privately? Despite LB raising it above and an arb replying? Oh well, I guess I'll never understand this system but stand by my opinion that the comment itself was not trollish, regardless of what might have happened elsewhere. You win, of course. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was mentioned here, I'll reply. I'm completely unaffiliated with this case and have no real interest in being involved. The IP which posted that message also posted a disruptive comment with a disruptive edit summary on SlimVirgin's talk page. He or she also created an account with a trolling, abusive username (and was promptly blocked), as can be seen via checkuser. I cannot give the username per the privacy policy, but suffice it to say that the IP was not here to contribute constructively. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, thanks. I wasn't aware of the block that GW referred to. Like I said, it doesn't alter the nature of the comment made here, which didn't seem to me to be a trollish comment, but I suppose DENY applies in these circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't for the context of their other actions then it probably wouldn't have been removed. Context does matter however. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on the posting of the proposed decision? I do realise there is a major brouhaha going on elsewhere but this time round we've not even seen the PD date amended at the top of this page. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several brouhahas, including the one you mention, are taking up a lot of time. Otherwise it would have been finished. ASAP is all I can say - we really do want to get this out as soon as we can. Giving another date seems pointless. Doug Weller (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. At least I have the option of walking away from the current infighting etc without having to concern myself about letting down my !voters by devoiding my "duty" or indeed ignoring the wider community. So that's what I'm doing. This place has gone nuts recently and it puts ArbCom in a particularly difficult position. My thanks for all you do, even when I disagree with it. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion" is at the head of this talk page but, in the last few days, posts here have mushroomed into a forum-like discussion about the broader points about the civility/gender issue. It happened because the arbs are engaging in the discussion. As far as I can see, the only post that's actually relevant to the case is Sarah/SV's ("harrassment drove LB to it", to precis and paraphrase), and even that should have been in the evidence phase not now. Could an arb or clerk explain how the discussion they are permitting is within the scope of this talk page? DeCausa (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We normally allow some latitude to discuss underlying issues but I agree that this has moved into a tangential general discussion, much of relating to mattrs which are neither within the committee's control, nor its remit, nor the scope of the case. I'll be hatting some of it shortly.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In this area/these participants, latitude soon snowballs. DeCausa (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that the workshop phase closed one month ago and there is still no proposed decision up. It boggles. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, where is the appropriate forum to comment that I believe the history of hounding and harassment that Lightbreather has experienced should to be considered with respect to proposed decision on this arbcom case if not here? Also, why are my comments regarding how to potentially prevent this sort of thing in the future off-topic?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to prevent "this sort of thing" in future are not relevant here because this page is explicitly only for discussing the decision regarding the Lightbreather case, not what might, could, should or should not happen in the future. You did not make any comments regarding what you now say you believe above, these points have already been made by several other people already and the drafters have already made it clear that this is being considered. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:GorillaWarfare is this [27] an admin action or arb action? I'm curious if you bothered to read [28]. It could easily be that this was consensus and you were arbcoms hammer man.. I have no opinion whatsoever about the person behind the post but I do think this is the appropriate forum to ask again if your judgement is compromised in this area? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was an action I made as an individual, not an action of the committee. The user had previously made a harassing edit that shows that they are WP:NOTHERE, and I note that an unblock filed on their behalf has been denied by Reaper Eternal, with the comment that "checkuser indicates that this IP has been used for abusive account creation". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision deadline, as already extended five times, has been missed. Could the Committee please clarify when we might expect it to get around to resolving this case? TotientDragooned (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to respond to Sitush's comment. I feel a bit odd even starting a section since I was inactive during the entire period the case's actions took place in. Yes, I pointed out the removed IP comment to GorillaWarfare off-wiki. I did so at the beginning of a discussion of an issue I could conceivably have been banned for if I had started on-wiki. I'm not going to take the time to point something out on a noticeboard at the same time that I'm having a discussion that is by policy necessarily held off-wiki when the comment could most directly addressed by the same person in the first place. I'm not sure I'd see a problem even if I hadn't raised the comment at the start of a discussion about a necessarily private conversation given the previous actions of the IP. I've recently written an essay setting out some of my views w/r/t off-wiki communication. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is really unacceptable. I don't really agree with Lightbreather in anything else, but are can the arbs give us a REASON as to why they're taking so long? Super major brouhahahahahahahahahaha is a poor excuse for extending this case so long. ASAP is not 4 days. There better be some major Watergate level scandals to cause this or you solve deletionism inclusionism debate. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: Primarily because there has been an astonishing amount of to-ing and fro-ing over process plus an unprecedented number of requests by email covering a wide range of subjects and spanning many weeks. The events of 25-29 June have also directly impacted on the timetable and (in my case) a big real life job has also since then derailed, eating into available time. For what it's worth, we are seeking to address wider issues than just the narrow focus of the case as will be apparent when it is posted.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: "Wider issues" sounds like fun. Also, what are these "major events"? And this'll be some interesting policy making by ArbCom. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time since original due date for proposed decision: 26. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess and Carrite: Relying to both these points, there has been a very significant amount of back channel to-ing and fro-ing by email, involving both the parties and their supporters/detractors. With arbitrator/functionary commentary, this probably involves over a thousand emails. These only concluded just over a week ago, so the time since original due date isn't really relevant here. The "wider issues" are aimed at addressing some underlying and recurrent problems and do not, as far as I can see, involve any policy-making by ArbCom. One of the areas we looked at was whether the WMF Non discrimination policy ("NDP") (which basically controls the way WMF staff and contractors conduct themselves) could perhaps be repurposed and adapted on the English Wikipedia, and whether it is beneficial to do so. This probably won't make it into the final PD.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Is there a reason why you won't explain what's happening publicly, plus give us more regular and specific updates? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chess, pings don't work unless you make the ping in the same edit as you add a signature. (Pinging Roger Davies to fix...) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chess We don't normally discuss deliberations or private submissions publicly, with good reason. It tends to open the door to unhelpful speculation and fresh rounds of allegation and acrimony. And, as I suggested above, I've been hammered with new real life jobs, with tight deadlines, so my spare time has been at a premium. On top of this, we've had a recent succession of unusual and time-consuming events to deal with, which has also eroded my/committee focusing time. Worryingly, firefighting difficult sensitive stuff that we are ill-equipped to handle is becoming the norm for ArbCom. The only solution is to cut back significantly on what we look after, seeing for example what could be passed on elsewhere. One split might be for ArbCom to deal only with on-wiki stuff and all off-wiki stuff to go to the WMF. We need to do something though as it is becoming more difficult to reach consensus (both internally and within the community) about how to deal with stuff with real life implications.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Maybe you should consider giving the drafting arb position to someone else? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chess We already have several people working this.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: Any ETA on the proposed decision? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Hopefully by Sunday (unless yet another crisis engulfs us).  Roger Davies ^talk 07:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: It took that long to prepare a decision without Wider policy implications? Also, how does the WMF non discrimination even relate to this? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 11:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: and others. As a quick illustration of how much behind the scenes activity there has been regarding this case, look at the following table.

Limitations:

• These are only the emails that I have considered worth saving - there are additional emails that have had to be read but which I haven't considered worth saving that are not included in the above counts.
• It gives no indication of the length (I don't know how to get that information from Gmail) or complexity of those individual emails - some of the emails in this case have required much greater and more complex action than is typical.
• It does not include activity not on email (e.g. here and on arbwiki).
• The figures for both closed cases include emails from after the cases closed which are relevant to the case, whereas there will be more emails related to LB even before the case closes.

Please also remember that arbitrators all have real lives and have limited time they can spend dealing with arbitration matters. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this case getting so much attention, again? I thought this was about Lightbreather's allegedly bad behavior editing articles? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than waste more of our time, please read the explanations previously given in several places. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the quite unusual way this case has developed, the length of time that has made some aspects of the workshop discussion obsolete, and the fact that some of the committee members'/clerks' comments have raised concerns about the policy implications of whatever actions the committee may take in light of the (previously undiscussed) "wider issues" cited, I hope (and propose) that a special subpage of the proposed decision page be created to enable structured community comments/discussion (similar to the workshop page). Discussion of findings of fact should likely be constrained, as weighing and evaluating evidence is clearly a task generally reserved for the committee. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I've just finished assembling a final draft for scrutiny by my colleagues. My aim is to post it tomorrow. In the end, it contained nothing with "wider issue" policy implications, so there is no need for what you suggest. For information, there have been extensive discussions about recommending the community adopt a similar policy to the WMF's non discrimination policy. The problem is that it primarily governs WMF staff and their interactions with users, rather than conduct by users. If the community wish to adopt such a policy, or similar, they are perfectly capable of doing so. The main advantage of adopting it would be to establish perimeters for what is and what isn't acceptable in the context of other policies, but it could equally become a wikilawyer's charter.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the principle regarding not "fighting back" against harassment has been phrased strongly enough. I therefore modestly propose that the language "For example, editors threatened with sexual assault should be prepared to lie back and enjoy it." Perhaps other editors can swiftly provide other useful additions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LFaraone:, if ArbComm decides, as it is poised to, that female editors should not "fight back" against sexual harassment, it will be setting bad policy. If it decides to punish a female editor for trying to identify a perpetrator of vicious sexual harassment, as it is poised to, it will be setting policy that is not merely bad but abominably stupid. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it rather sad that the proposed decision preaches about the importance of only ever bringing up offsite harassment through arbcom, while completely failing to deal with the offsite harassment in question. Any old fool looking at the evidence could conclude (Redacted), but Arbcom's frankly stupid institutional reluctance to connect an offsite account to an editor unless they come right out and admit it has struck again. To place a finding against Lightbreather for bringing this up offsite (which is the reasonable thing to do in such situations where arbcom is completely ineffectual) seems absolutely shameful given the circumstances. Bosstopher (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the issue of a certain user who I am not allowed to name allegedly engaging in sexual harassment: In all discussions I have seen in offsite forums, there is unanimous agreement regarding whose behind it. While one or two have questioned if its harassment, not a single person seems to doubt who the perpetrator is. That arbcom is not confident in reaching the same conclusion is deeply disheartening. Unless you've all received some secret kernel of evidence that turns all these allegations on their head, then you're definitely being far too cautious. I can only hope that in the future efforts are made to reform Arbcom and make it more capable of handling offsite harassment, or that otherwise such issues have been forwarded to the WMF to deal with. Arbcom needs to overcome its fears of WP:OUTING, or else the advantage will always be in the hand of harassers in wiki disputes. Bosstopher (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The matter was also investigated by the functionaries team and the Wikimedia Foundation. See discussion higher up on this page. LFaraone 22:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't speak for how the Arbs reached their conclusions (and I obviously can't provide details of mailing list discussions here), I will say that my experience of the functionaries discussion on this topic was that nobody could agree where the line for "enough evidence" even lay, let alone on whether the presented evidence crossed it or not. It was very much a "no consensus" discussion rather than a "consensus to not X" discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In section 3.1.11 of the proposed decision, concerning conduct at arbitration pages, there are unbalanced quotes. It appears to be an extra trailing quote. This makes it hard to determine exactly what is being quoted. I know that this is small compared to the substance of the decision. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. LFaraone 23:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf and Seraphimblade state or imply in their support votes for a site ban that it is never acceptable to out another editor. That seems ill-considered, given a backdrop of Wikipedians, especially female Wikipedians, receiving rape and death threats from other Wikipedians, or having them turn up as stalkers at a place of work. As written, what you are saying implies that a woman in that invidious position will be site-banned if she goes to the police and divulges the editor's identity. Andreas JN466 00:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]