Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed decision

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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.

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

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).

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).

Lightbreather's section

Anything fresh of this nature is best handled by email between LB and the committee.  Roger Davies talk 08:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have just sent you (ArbCom) an email with more evidence of off-wiki harassment. Also, regarding this edit - [1] - isn't the workshop phase closed? Lightbreather (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks, email received. Also the poster to the workshop has self-reverted; it is indeed closed. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Doug Weller, regarding the two-week protection on the workshop page: Do you or does the committee expect this thing to go until June 25? When will this be over? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Appreciate this was a ping for Doug, but as I've just become co-drafter I thought I'd respond by saying we're aiming for the PD to come out on time (June 16). But past experience shows it takes about two weeks of voting before majorities are achieved on any remedies. So, likely the case will still be open on June 25 unless people vote faster than they usually do. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Doug Weller, Roger Davies, Euryalus: Is there a way to see who has interaction bans with whom? I ask because I asked a question on the evidence talk page on May 21 [2] to which I never received a reply. We do and we don't. There is Wikipedia:Editing restrictions but you will quickly note that it isn't kept current - I have no idea how many bans haven't been registered there. Doug Weller (talk) 11:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC) L235 and Liz: Are section edits (for non-arbs and non-clerks) going to be enforced on this page? (Gaijin42 has posted in Rich Farmbrough's section.) Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2015 (UTC) Word from the arbitrators is that discussion on this talk page will be sectioned although Gaijin42 has since removed his comments. Liz Read! Talk! 15:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Ca2james and Gaijin42, I'm not sure there ever was any benefit to me in submitting evidence privately, so I don't care if you think "posting it publicly is just likely to cause more problems." Problems for who? You? No. Me? If I'm going to be harassed out of editing, I might as well leave a record of it for anyone else who finds themselves in a similar situation. They might be able to reach out to me for some sympathy and some advice about what doesn't work. I'm tired of suffering privately. This is just some of the kind of crap I'm putting up with: http://archive.is/KvWV8 and http://archive.is/yLIdf and https://www.google.com/#q=%22Wikipedia+editor+Lightbreather%22+site:sex.com How many men on Wikipedia can say the same? Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Capeo, I have shared NOTHING publicly that wasn't already public, and that's all I have to say to you. Lightbreather (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC) ...except to note that the only thing you've worked on on-wiki since April 28 is my case. Lightbreather (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC) capeo NOUN 1. Act of challenging a bull with a cloak. (m) Lightbreather (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Doug Weller, Roger Davies, Euryalus: Could these please be deleted, per WP:POLEMIC User:Scalhotrod/ArbStuff User:Scalhotrod/fortherecord User talk:Scalhotrod/Hfile Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Scalhotrod has changed his user page to "retired" and the evidence phase is over. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Sorry, this is not the place for general discussion.  Roger Davies talk 08:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Thryduulf: ... language that is regarded as respectful in one part of the world may unintentionally cause great offence to a contributor from another culture. This is the English Wikipedia. There is nowhere in the English-speaking world where it is respectful to call someone a "cunt," or a bitch, or a witch, or a nun who masturbates while a priest burns on a cross, or an elephant in the room. It isn't respectful to ask someone if they're hallucinating, or to say that a woman is "too emotional" to edit a subject, or to preface a question to an adult with "Is duh wittle." --Lightbreather (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Indeed not, but like Djembayz you appear to have assumed that my comments were referring to specific words, phrases or communication styles used by and/or to specific groups of editors when they were not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

Please remove

The edit in question has already been removed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was pleased to see that GorillaWarfare removed the troll post made a few days ago,[11] and I'm perturbed to see that it has been restored by another logged-out editor.[12] I would like to ask again that the post - which alleges that I have "radical minority viewpoints" that need "handling" - be removed and the page be semi-protected. Since the PD is expected today, no doubt it could get very nasty here, and I've endured enough anonymous nastiness in the last two months. Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts was made an issue during the GGTF ArbCom (though I was the only one of many to be sanctioned for it). Editing while logged out (my bad), editing under multiple IP addresses, and editing under multiple accounts is NOT allowed "in discussions internal to the project." Lightbreather (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC) Twenty (20) IP addresses participated in the GGTF ArbCom: 2.125.151.139 12.249.243.118 61.70.142.155 61.235.249.163 67.255.123.1 69.16.147.185 71.11.1.204 72.223.98.118 76.72.20.218 80.174.78.59 87.254.87.183 90.213.181.169 94.54.249.249 96.254.99.51 122.162.75.136 122.177.11.190 176.28.103.210 189.109.13.162 204.101.237.139 2600:1011:B146:306D:F43A:C42E:BC0A:45F6 Only one editor was sanctioned: me... after a public outing of my IP address and other info. Meanwhile, logged-out editors should be allowed to comment on my case? One of the many reasons I am retiring as soon as this thing is closed. Lightbreather (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Request a 1-way IBAN between HIAB and GW

Neither Hell in a Bucket nor GorillaWarfare are parties to this case, and the evidence and workshop phases are over. If you wish to make a statement regarding another incident you are perfectly capable of doing so in the same place everyone else is required to. Thryduulf (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One thing I would like to see come out of this case: A 1-way IBAN preventing Hell in a Bucket from commenting on or interacting with GorillaWarfare. It's been apparent for months that he intends to continue to hound and harass her. He has been confronting her, talking about her, and pushing to have her recused or desysoped resign almost frantically for the past 48 hours.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] (Some of this could be called forum shopping.) I would also remind the committee of how disruptive his actions were during the final week or two of the GGTF ArbCom, ignoring the case clerk, outing info about me, and filing a public SPI that should have been handled via email. It's telling that his way of "lightening the mood" after EvergreenFir requested ARE was to post a YouTube video titled crazy old woman vs telemarketer.[21] Lightbreather (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

• The committee set out numerous proposed principles. However, if one were to come along and read the findings of fact, they'd get the impression that the only harassment I received was while editing gun-control pages. While that was indeed the subject area in which I was first harassed, the targetting widened when I decided, in July 2014, to speak up about the virtual non-enforcement of the civility policy. I think that should be reflected in the Background statement.
• Further, the findings of fact don't properly reflect the magnitude of the targeting I've received. The Targetted statement should be clarified along the lines of:

Lightbreather has been the target of repeated personal attacks, allegations without evidence, aspersions, hounding, and harassment by numerous editors, and, since the opening of this case, the target of off-wiki sexual harassment.

The current language - "Lightbreather has been the target of inappropriate on-wiki comment..." - seriously downplays my experience.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

User:DramaMonger

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

Clean start

So despite all the on- and off-wiki harassment I've received for over a year now, including sexual harassment in the past three months, IF I ever want to return to editing someday, I may not make a clean start? The policy says the two most common reasons for wanting one is recognizing past mistakes, and to avoid harassment. All my ibans were about stopping harassment (wikihounding). Lightbreather (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The hypocrisy of this case

Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst was my mantra during this case. The hypocrisy here is that the editors whom I asked to be added as involved parties have all repeatedly engaged in behaviors that I am facing a ban over. The amount of evidence that I was allowed to present indicates that, and if they individually faced cases like mine - where it's one person against all comers - it would be proved. I don't know what else to say besides that. Lightbreather (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision timetable

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

Ca2james' section

Off-wiki harassment is best raised, per ArbPol, by email with the committee and - for a variety of policy reasons - are unsuitable for public discussion.  Roger Davies talk 08:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Doug Weller, Roger Davies, and Euryalus, I'm confused about Lightbreather's recent post describing more evidence of off-wiki email harassment. I do not in any way condone those emails but I don't understand why they've been posted publicly and during this last phase. Lightbreather already sent an email during the Evidence phase, posted information during the Workshop phase, and recently sent an email during this Proposed Decision phase, all regarding off-wiki harassment. While there is no doubt in my mind that she has been harassed, I thought the evidence phase was over. Thank you for your attention. Ca2james (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the clarification Gaijin42! I didn't know that evidence like those emails could still be added but I agree that they would have been better submitted via email. Ca2james (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Adding that I have read of editors - male and female - being inappropriately sued, having their internet cut off, and otherwise being harassed. Harassment is not unique to Wikipedia or to women. I think publicly posting specific harassing emails shows the world how to harass the receiver (similar to what is described in WP:BEANS), which is why I thought it would be better to email that harassment privately. Ca2james (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC) While I agree that harassment needs to be discussed, I'm not sure this page is the best place to do it. Ca2james (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC) I am sorry that Lightbreather has been harassed and I wish it hadn't happened. I appreciate that the committee has looked into the harassment and has taken steps to deal with it, even though this has extended this case. I did want to raise one concern I have: that the harassment will be used as a mitigating factor when determining sanctions. The harassment occurred after the case started and doesn't change the evidence that was submitted to the committee. If the committee decides not to sanction her because the evidence wasn't compelling, that's one thing, but to not sanction or to reduce sanctions because of the harassment would be something undesirable. I know that this concern is almost certainly unfounded but I can see political reasons for going this route, so I wanted to bring this up. Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

@Ca2james: Also other cases running at same time. But thanks for the song. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin42's section

Further comments by email to ArbCom please.  Roger Davies talk 08:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ca2james there are generally exceptions for new evidence for things that happen during the case or after the evidence section closing, so adding additional stuff is not itself a problem (for example, my diffs of LB's gaming in the workshop findings) . However, this does seems like something that would have been better to send via email to the committee as posting it publicly is just likely to cause more problems. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Per LB's polemic suggestion User:Scalhotrod/ArbStuff and User:Scalhotrod/ArbStuff at is dealing with evidence that is in play in this arb case, so seems to match point #2 of WP:POLEMIC " The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner" however, it should probably be cleaned up after the end of this case (especially as scalhotrod also says he is retiring, and may be subject to sanctions as well). Gaijin42 (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

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

Roger Davies The committee would certainly know better than I, but I did not think this was hypothetical. There have been several discussions about actions LB is/could/should take. If those are appropriate (and I think they probably are) it should be clarified that NLT does not apply to actions taken in response to threats/harassment/etc (the fact that she is taking action in reference to off wiki conduct could also be used to say that NLT does not apply?). After the case closes, I may make an RFC proposing such an exception be added into NLT, either blanket exemption, or something saying "with the permission of ArbCom, WMF, or clear consensus at ANI" Gaijin42 (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Liz L235 very minor issue, but my nick is misspelled in Finding 3 which may confuse some. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin42, thanks for bringing that to our attention, it's been corrected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Very late evidence

I have sent email to the arbcom-l about additional off-wiki evidence regarding the off-wiki harrassment of Lightbreather. I apologize for the extreme lateness of this evidence, I did not anticipate it would be helpful/needed but since apparently there is a lack of consensus in the committee regarding the evidence, I thought I would add it into the mix to see if it pushed any fence-sitters. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

We have received the email and will discuss it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Capeo's Section

This seems to have run its course,  Roger Davies talk 08:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
LB, I'm sure you know, but there is no shortage of Wikipedia editors who have and still do face serious harassment. Both men and women. Everything from doxing to sexual harassment to legal threats to death threats to your garden variety relentless trolling. Some so serious they had to physically relocate. Most that I'm aware of still edit here. It's a rather sad reality of the internet: anonymity breeds a hateful courage. Especially when you bring your fight out into the wider Internet and start publicly naming and shaming editors like you did on your blog and Twitter and linking to that Wordpress that says pretty horrific stuff about editors regularly. That stuff is a troll-magnet. By posting what you did above, things nobody ever would have seen unless you did, you're feeding into their little inferiority complex and bolstering their sad existence. Don't feed them. All that said the gross harassment you're facing has no direct bearing on this case and the evidence presented. Aside from the fact that if the offenders can be definitively linked to an editor they should obviously be banned. And I do mean banned not indeffed. Capeo (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC) Lightbreather, you are correct, I barely edit. Mainly due the fact that almost every area of editing in this wiki is somehow contentious. Everything becomes a battle and it's tiresome so I haven't found the energy to devote my limited free time to it. I did present evidence in this case though so I figure I should stick through it. As for your dissection of my user name? You're way off. If you must know it comes from a cousin when growing up who couldn't pronounce my first name and would say what sounded like E-O instead. The nickname stuck and then this unfortunate turn of events took place: Captain EO, and I was forever stuck with Captain EO among family and friends. Luckily these days nobody remembers that movie. Capeo (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd think you might want to strike the last clause in Principle 10. Non-expert volunteers shouldn't being giving specific advice to users in dealing with something as serious as the type of harassment the principle deals with. I would say directing users to the relevant page and to the paid employees of the WMF should be sufficient. Capeo (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Djembayz' section

Thanks for all the comments, folks, but this has now drifted far from the purpose of this page. Further comments are best made on individual's talk pages or perhaps on policy talk pages.  Roger Davies talk 08:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As a GLAM professional and a female editor, I am tired of the constant intimidation tactics being used both online and in person by this organization. Like the Australian general said, "The standard you pass by is the standard you accept." Here's what is being said about the small town where I conducted an editathon, which has been in the public eye lately due to rape and sexual harassment investigations. “Sexual assault and sexual harassment are intolerable; they undermine women’s basic rights and, when perpetrated against students, can negatively impact their ability to learn and continue their education,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division." That town's policy is no longer just "stay away from situations where people are acting like barbarians," it now urges people to "speak out against crude behavior and jokes", and to speak up when things are getting out of control. For some of us, this is not our first rodeo; we have seen way too many idealistic group situations like Wikipedia that went sour because nobody was willing to challenge abusive behaviors. I urge the Arbcom to show leadership here and start taking some steps towards ending abusive and intimidating practices on this site. --Djembayz (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Djembayz The arbitration committee deplores harassment and discrimination of any kind. Over the years, we've worked hard - often behind the scenes, often with the WMF - to make the encyclopedia a safer place. However, it is impossible - in particular on the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and in general on the internet - to prevent harassment from taking place. This problem is not limited to ArbCom; even national governments and law enforcement bodies are often similarly powerless. It is fair to say that the community's expectations of what ArbCom can achieve are sometimes unrealistically high. While I cannot go into detail about the present situation the fact remains that we have taken this very seriously indeed and we've devoted far more time to it than we would ordinarily do. We have already banned half a dozen or so accounts and investigations are still on-going. Apart from site banning people we know to be responsible for abusive actions, which we've already done, what else do we have the authority and ability to actually do? That's not rhetorical. If there is something else, let's consider it.  Roger Davies talk 17:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC) As Arbcom, you are not powerless over the ANI spaces. You work for an organization with $50 million / year and 500 administrators to enforce. Yet you are responding that "we can't do anything, we don't know what to do, we can't figure this out unless you figure it out for us." Not buying it. You tell me even governments can't do anything. Not buying it. Read chapters 9 and 10 of ISBN: 9780231704496. Governments are working out the rules of engagement, same as you are. And guess what: governments need web organizations to stand up and start patrolling their own borders like responsible citizens. Certainly some harassment will always occur. However, there is a big difference between harassment that is unchecked and repeated, with no redress for those who are harassed, and harassment that is dealt with using the explicit and proven processes and procedures which help prevent it from recurring. It's not like Wikipedia is the first place where anyone has ever been harassed. When I attempted to "speak out against crude behavior and jokes" on ANI last summer, in defense of the subject of this Arbcm case, I was told to leave the website if I didn't like it, to take a break, to come back when I was no longer upset about crude, disrespectful language towards women, both by administrators and WMF staff. When I complained about comments with sexual content and a noose, the response I got from a WMF staffer contained crude language. Let me tell you now, I am not that "cool" that men get to say this stuff to me just because I think they are cute. When I asked for a scholarship to go to this spring's Berlin meeting and discuss some of these issues in person, I was told that for a meeting focused on improving NGO governance, my chapter needed to send a male volunteer willing to do statistical analysis of program impact free of charge, not a woman concerned with gender issues. When I finally got to have a long phone conversation with a WMF staffer working on the gender/civility issue, it was all, "Well, I'm looking forward at talking to you about this in person at Wikimania." Except, I didn't get the funding to go to the Wikimania meeting either, too bad, so sad. You will say my criticisms are not valid because I am not providing diffs. Well, I'm a volunteer, you are not paying me for all that additional work. And while we're on funding: Yes, the $9,000 grant to pilot Gender Gap admin training at Wikimania is a start-- but not exactly a major organizational commitment. The proposal to fund development of a comprehensive harassment policy didn't pass. (And guess what, the person who proposed funding for a comprehensive harassment policy was thrown off English Wikipedia by Arbcom, for undisclosed reasons. Even if this person deserved to be thrown out, throwing somebody out who proposes funding for an anti-harassment policy, and then refusing to allocate funds for developing an anti-harassment policy really does not look good. You may "deplore" discrimination and harassment all you like here at Arbcom, but if you aren't willing to stand up for putting an effective policy in place, so what?) A vocal segment of the community refuses to accept the civil rights and anti-harassment standards for "non-hostile environment" which US educational institutions must observe under US law. Meanwhile others in the community are anxious to send "ambassadors" into US educational institutions to "recruit more women." Given how hard some of us had to argue to change the name of this year's Wikimania presentation on recruiting women from its original title, something on the order of "How to pick up more women," I am wondering exactly what is going on here. Exactly why are you so interested in these women? As the grizzly mama bear in my chapter, let me growl that you better stay away from our young women here in the US if you do not observe US law! And in fact, maybe you shouldn't be expecting collaboration from US taxpayer-funded institutions at all if you are not willing to observe US civil rights and anti-harassment laws. People in this country fought long and hard for civil rights and a non-hostile working environment. If you think everyone is willing to give these things up just because someone invented cyberspace, you have another think coming. And if you think you're recruiting our young women for your "Bridge to Selma" moment of breaking down the barriers to free knowledge, remember that an honorable leader tells their people ahead of time when they are signing up for something where they are likely to get hurt. Exactly how much damage and cyberharassment any given individual can withstand varies greatly, so better to be up front about it before you start. Take a look at some of the user names in this case, and on this site. If something goes horribly wrong, sometimes the response would be, "with a user name like that, are you really telling me you didn't see it coming?" Are you ready to field questions from reporters about that Mr. Biedermann and the Arsonists moment? You are educated people on Arbcom with a wide base of experience. Some of you are familiar with corporate HR departments, with the standards of decorum expected at international meetings, with anti-harassment training, etc., etc. If your committee can't implement the same standards you would expect from a respectable employer because you are part-time volunteers, it's time to insist on getting paid help. There's no excuse for saying that a small committee of part-time volunteers is the only way to manage disputes over 4 million articles and all the people who wrote them. It's not the only way, and we all know it. Resources are available for training from organizations such as The National Association for Community Mediation, Moderation Gateway, the Ada Intiative, and many others. There is lots training out there on "nonviolent communication" strategies, and on working with diverse populations too. If you do not require any training whatsoever for volunteers assigned to enforcement roles, can you really be surprised when results are poor or uneven? A site ban is not the only possible response to unacceptable comments or behaviors. There's also, I don't think that remark came out the way you intended it, or then again, maybe it did. Either way, I'm deleting it from the discussion for now, so you can try it one more time. If you think this needs to be said, would you please try making your point one more time, and make an extra effort at a respectful tone of voice? There's also, well, we want you to know these are real people out there, with real voices. Please click that button to record your comment as an .mp3. You will need to actually listen to everything said in this discussion before you can speak. Of course, if you don't hear well enough to use the audio, just ask and we'll get you a transcription. And by the way, even though we don't care who you are or what username you use, we do think it's important to stand behind what you say enough that you will say it even if your friends and neighbors can recognize your recorded voice. So, in the space of one quick comment on an Arbcom case, or a phone call, or a comment on a noticeboard, I am supposed to explain my whole position on how to deal with the situation-- and why I am having such a problem with it-- even though there are many things I can't say online. It's not for lack of willingness to collaborate on my part; it's that I can't be fully open on the Internet, and it's that a male-dominated community based on consensus will, by definition, resist input from people who can't work within the context of its existing social norms. "Anything is difficult when it is done unwillingly." --Djembayz (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC) I'll go through shortly and try to address your concerns, but I hope you realize that arbcom is not paid, and we don't have direct access to WMF budget. We are all volunteers, just as you are. NativeForeigner Talk 05:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC) It is also worth noting that ArbCom is independent of the WMF - we have no control over their budget, spending decisions or priorities, and we have no say in who receives or does not receive grants. As NF has said, we are all volunteers donating our time (we don't receive any money at all, not even expenses) to try and make the encyclopaedia better by trying to resolve disputes and things that get in the way of making a better encyclopaedia. We have no budget to spend on this and our power is limited to the English Wikipedia. Our only enforcement tools are blocks and bans from the English Wikipeida, and we can only use them to enforce the policies of English Wikipedia as they currently exist. We are explicitly prohibited from making new policies - the most we can do is tell the community as a whole that we feel there should be a policy on X or that policy Y needs refining - we cannot compel them to take any notice, let alone force them to agree to a specific outcome. This is a global community, and part of the problem with civility here is that language that is regarded as respectful in one part of the world may unintentionally cause great offence to a contributor from another culture. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Pray tell, in what parts of the world are vulgar, explicit, and obscene terms about reproductive organs or sexual activities considered a polite way to interact one-on-one with female strangers? I speak several languages, have lived and worked in various countries, and so far, the only women I have met who routinely accept that sort of language in one-on-one interaction with strange men in whom they have no romantic interest are working women in red light districts. And even these women will tell you that they prefer being treated with respect. The second big difficulty with "unintentional offense" for people unaccustomed to an international or multicultural situation is not dealing appropriately with things that are construed as "fighting words" or threats of violence. Attempting to "desensitize" others to something that their culture says constitutes "fighting words" or threats of violence doesn't work. Even if you don't mean anything bad by what you have said, the person you are addressing will still continue to face other people who say the same thing and actually are attempting to threaten them. And it is not necessarily possible for the person who hears these words to determine who are the harmless outsiders who don't know any better, and who are the people who actually intend to do harm. The "barbarian pirates hit the beach" approach to intercultural communication may be entertaining for a while, but over time, it becomes a distraction that creates bad feeling and makes it harder to get business done, such as writing an encyclopedia. There is no reason for us to be re-inventing "Intercultural Communication 101" here on this website when there is so much training available. If what I am saying here is unfamiliar to you or others in the community, it is time to bring some professional or community trainers in to do some practical exercises on how to function effectively in working situations with multinational, diverse groups. Do you feel Arbcom's current policy toolbox is adequate for addressing these sorts of issues in intercultural communication? It certainly doesn't look that way from my perspective. --Djembayz (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC) You appear to have misunderstood the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and confusing us with the Wikimedia Foundation, to whom your points would be better addressed. You also appear to have assumed that my comments were referring to specific words, phrases or communication styles used by and/or to specific groups of editors when they were not. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Djembayz, the last sentence of your paragraph above is the explanation of the key problem: arb com does not have the tools in its tool box to deal with the problem. Some it might have, if the community wanted to change its policy towards the forms of impoliteness that can be conducive to harassment, which I hope the community will. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Thank you to the arbs for a productive exchange of views on this page. I hope the arbs now have a fuller perspective regarding the online and offline efforts to DefendEachOther involving women, some of whom are associated with my chapter. I would like to sleep on this, and return with some questions so as to have a better sense of how to proceed. --Djembayz (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

• Not following all the details, but a quick look at the overall approach to the editing disputes suggests it is basically reasonable. Leaving interaction bans as an option for resolving conflicts could prove to be a useful thing.
• A thanks to the Arbcom for their service, but frankly, the issues of harassment here really can't be properly addressed by part-time volunteers. It takes work, ongoing human attention, and a serious time commitment to be able to sort these situations out promptly, at the time they come up, long before they mushroom into the mess you saw here.
• If the volunteers staffing the Arbitration Committee aren't clear about the difference between sexual harassment and other forms of harassment as indicated on this page, can't create a clear and usable set of reporting procedures to follow, and are suggesting that editors must remain silent about charges of criminal behavior if they wish to continue editing on this website, then it is time for WMF to hire professionals with backgrounds in HR and moderation who know what they are doing.
• You aren't wasting any more of my time here with demands for free consulting, and vague suggestions that "perhaps" comments could be made on policy pages. I know when I'm being played for a sucker :) --Djembayz (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Who the WMF hires or does not hire is a matter entirely for the WMF. We (Arbcom) have no say or influence in the matter. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

EvergreenFir's section

Not the place for wide-reaching proposals,  Roger Davies talk 08:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SlimVirgin is exactly right. The focus is far too heavy on the behavior with what seems like willful disregard to its causes. Frankly some of the behavior against LB borders on the illegal. ArbCom and the community in general seems unwilling to recognize the toxicity that exists and actively defend some of the worst (and repeat) offenders. Honestly my only hope is top-down pressure from WMF and that admins who refuse to address problem users because of personal biases or allegiances are removed. I'd honestly propose that a special committee or enforcement group be set up to deal specifically with gender issues. ANI is utterly broken in this regard as the problem is so endemic. ArbCom and AE can be used for GG sanction enforcement, but that's rather narrow. Post facto interaction bans are not enough. We need a functioning enforcement mechanism to address gender-based harassment. One that will take complaints seriously. I know this is beyond the scope of this case, but it's germane to it. I don't know where such a proposal would go though. If anyone has suggestions (or perhaps WMF members see this...), please let me know. Should have followed this case closer and commented in the workshop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Minor reply to previous edit: the harassment has been ongoing. Only recently has it become acute. But there's a constant static of it on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@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)

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

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

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)

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

• 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)
  • 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)

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

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)

@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)

Why is sexual harassment worse than any other sort of harassment? Would you prefer we didn't condemn e.g. racist harassment because, sorry, it wasn't sexual harassment so your experience doesn't matter as much. Should a Jewish woman have to prove that she was targetted because she was female not just because she was Jewish in order to get her harasser condemned? Thryduulf (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Where in the above did EvergreenFir suggest that racist or antisemitic harassment doesn't matter? I think it's a good point. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Really Thryduulf? Don't be daft. This case is about LB. Her harassment was sexual. This case is situated within the larger issue of gender disparity and conflict on WP. That gender is erased from this case is a problem. If this case contained racial harassment, I'd say that about race. My understanding is that proposed decisions, especially remedies, are rooted in the case itself.

If the committee means "serious harassment" to be "harassment based on identities", then say it that way. Or do you mean harassment by users like this person where they use scripts to spam folks? To me, the issue here is identity-based harassment and that is qualitatively different than spamming. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue is harassment based on identities, be it accurate or someone's best guess. People like JarlaxleArtemis are a pain, but his one-size-fits-all approach to personal attack has less impact than doxing/outing/individualized abuse. Its this individualized harassment that we most urgently need to address. The proposed wording for a 3.9 sounds good to me, with other views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Roger Davies' comments down in Mark's section show the problem well. He asserts harassment affects all equally, but (1) we're not talking about harassment by people like JarlaxleArtemis and (2) identity-based harassment does not affect everyone equally. Again, the remedies should address the case's finding of facts and the harassment in the case is identity-based. Arbs needs to directly address this case and its roots. The current wording erases the basis of the case and falsely equates all forms of harassment. And is there anything to suggest that white cis men are accused of pedophilia on Wikipedia disproportionately more than another group? That seems rather ridiculous. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

In all the accusations of paedophilia on Wikipedia that I have seen (which is admittedly not all of them), none has been made against an editor who openly identifies as female (cis or trans). I have no idea about ethnicity. Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• I don't assert that harassment affects all equally. Some people are certainly targeted more than others. Some because of gender, or nationality, or race or whatever. Others because they've upset an off-wiki interest group, or a lone-wolf vigilante, or they're administrators, or arbitrators, and so on. FYI, to my knowledge at least two of the participants in this case have received death threats, at least another four have been been threatened with outing/doxing, or have been outed/doxed.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Sitush's section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

DeCausa's section

"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)

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)

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

Carrite's section

Fair point but off topic. Let's resume this discussion elsewhere or after the case closes. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This case is not rocket science, yet it is going to top two months, start-to-finish, by the time the smoke clears. The failure to be expeditious has led to additional complexity. Hopefully there is something to be learned from this by ArbCom moving forward — shorten case phases, don't lengthen them. Carrite (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC) Yep. Although this case has a significant off wiki component which has required some quite detailed investigation and substantially extended the time. However as a general principle I think timelines are too long. It would be possible to slightly shorten the Evidence phase, as a fair quantity of evidence has already arrived via the Case Request. And greater use of the workshop should lead to a big shortening of the time between workshop close and the release of a PD - for example it's possible the AmPol2 PD would have been delivered faster if the conversation over DS scope had occurred in the workshop and not after it. We could also do more to simply stick to the timelines as announced, though again this case is an exception for off wiki reasons. This isn't the right place to really debate this general issue; I suppose I am simply acknowledging that you're right, we should make this swifter, and there's some fairly straightforward steps we could take on that direction. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

BoboMeowCat's section

This page is to discuss the proposed decision of this case, it is not for editorialising about general issues. If you want to discuss how the community should react to (allegations of) Wikihounding, whether it disproportionately affects female editors, and related topics then please do so in an appropriate forum. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I agree with Sarah (SV) that the history of hounding and harassment seems to have a lot to do with Lightbreather’s behavior. Her responses haven’t been perfect, but her behavior didn’t occur in a vacuum. I think perhaps the saddest thing regarding the ongoing harassment of Lightbreather, which EvergreenFir correctly described as bordering on illegal, is how unsurprising I find it given the history. I’ve witnessed editors, whose contributions show little to no interest in the goals of the Gender Gap task force, follow Lightbreather to that wikiproject and hound her and generally disrupt the wikiproject. I’ve seen editors discuss their vendetta against Lightbreather on their talk pages, promoting a battleground environment. I think an important question to ask is why this was allowed to go on so long? If policies against wiki-hounding were upheld long ago, I don’t think we’d be here. If those who found Lightbreather annoying and/or those who disagreed with her various POVs did not follow her to other pages or other wikiprojects to interfere with her work here, I do not believe it would have become such a battleground. I disagree with the hatting of multiple comments above as “general” or "wide reaching". The specific case of what’s happened with Lightbreather seems to be part of a general problem of hounding and harassment on Wikipedia. While this is not limited to female editors, from my observation, it disproportionally affects female editors, especially if they hold unpopular opinions which are characterized as "radical feminist", or else if they stand up to bullying instead of quickly backing down, giving up, and simply leaving Wikipedia.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

J8079s proposals

The workshop phase is over. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lightbreather: Topic banned from guns and gun related articles broadly construed. interaction ban with all other editors (0 reverts) No more chat and or blogs on the talk pages all comments need to be addressed to wikipedia, others subject to removal There is plenty of work to be done that does not require a gang of "frenimies" J8079s (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

HiaB

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)

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)

Not on topic for this case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Request made regarding GW For the drafting arbs and community I started a formal request asking for a ruling by the committee on GW recusing on this case due to a collection of events including her recent out of process block of EC. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Iban clarification

Are the rules governing Ibans still relaxed to this section or is it the committee preference we not? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The case is all but closed, and so far as I'm concerned the Ibans are now back in play. LightBreather's latest post has been reverted, and it only reinforces the decision to site ban her. Doug Weller (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller I was more concerned with the vagueness in some of the statements about on wiki comments. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah - in that case I'll have to leave that to someone else as I'm off to bed shortly. Doug Weller (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not awake enough either to give a judgement, but if you email your comments to the Committee we'll take a look and that definitely wont be a breach of your iban. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Status? (Totient's section)

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)

Kevin Gorman's section

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)

Chess section

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)

@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)

@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)

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

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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

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

@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)

@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.

Emails (accross all mailing lists) related to recent cases (as of 12 July 2015)

Case	Threads	Emails
Lightbreather	48	839
Collect and others	38	359
Occultzone and others	25	231

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)

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)

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

Lightbreather tries to doxx another editor offwiki and has the gall to complain of offwiki harassment? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Big Bad Wolfowitz's section

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

Nothing in the PD proposes to punish an editor for trying to identify someone who has harassed them. What the PD does refer to is outing another editor in order to encourage others to harass them. Lightbreather was harassed during the case. One editor was site-banned along the way. Lightbreather proposed that someone else was the harasser, but despite exhaustive analysis neither the Committee nor the wider functionaries group could agree on the strength of the evidence. There is scope for the matter to be pursued with the owners of various websites where the harassment was posted. There is also scope to pursue the matter with legal authorities. Both of these would be worth doing as they may yield the additional evidence required to resolve the issue. If these options are pursued, they deserve support from the entire WP community. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus:. Finding 3.6 states "Lightbreather posted inappropriately to an off-wiki website apparently with the objective of having the participants identify a Wikipedia editor by name". If this does not refer to an attempt by Lightbreather to get users of another website to identify to her a Wikipedia user editing pseudonymously, it should be rewritten so that it clearly states what it is intended to say. Because right now it strongly suggests my reading. (And if this refers to an editor who has been "outed" on Wikipediocracy, they outed themselves on-Wiki long before that.) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade:, so if, at a Wikipedia-sponsored or -affiliated event, a female Wikipedia editor is sexually harassed or assaulted, even by a WMF employee, they are forbidden to report the event on-Wiki, and will be indefinitely blocked if they warn other female editors who are planning to attend an upcoming event where the offender is expected to be present? If she is victimized by the Wikipedian-in-residence at an educational institution, is she similarly barred from discussing the matter on-wiki? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. If a female editor was harassed by WMF Employee Joe, they are allowed to, and it would be prudent. The question becomes when there is uncertainty regarding the identity of the accused, and in the process the accused is outed. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The female editor in question should also report the matter privately to the person's employer/sponsoring institution so that appropriate disciplinary action can be taken, and to the WMF (and local chapter if relevant) so that all parties are aware. It is also the case that allegations of harassment (or other misconduct for that matter) against someone does not permit the outing of that person. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Bosstopher's section

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)

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)

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)

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 to X" discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

If the line was drawn such that the weakest realistic standard of evidence was required, there would not have been consensus (at least among the arbs) that the presented evidence crossed it. There were just too many assumptions stacked on top of one another. On the contrary, everyone (arbs and functionaries) were certain that it was harassment. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone questioned that it was harassment. Fluffernutter's comment is about right; the functionaries and arbitrators did not make the decision to not act, we were completely unable to agree on it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon's section

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)

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

Response to Harassment

In section 3.1.10, there is disagreement among arbitrators as to the last sentence, saying that editors may report harassment to local police and consider lowering their profile. I assume that the disagreement is about the second part (not about reporting harassment to police). While lowering one's WP profile during harassment is typically the course of prudence, including that statement in the decision could be seen, by the small number of very dangerous off-wiki harassers, as an encouragement to harassment as a way of forcing a lowering of a profile. I suggest that the arbitrators drop it so as not to be taken as indicating that harassment may be a way to force an editor to lower her profile. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Question

Was any of the harassment done by known Wikipedia editors? Have they been sanctioned? (If so, I understand that those editors may not be identified publicly.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes and yes, see my response to Andreas above. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Andreas' section

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)

Reporting a criminal matter to the police is not outing. Reporting publicly (on or off wiki) that you have made a criminal allegation against Joe Bloggs (user:Example) is outing and is not acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Mildly echoing Thryduulf: there's a significant difference between attempting to out someone on a website, and making a report of unlawful conduct to an authority like the police. For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in any arbcom remedy should be taken to remove or infringe upon someone's legal rights, including the right to make police reports. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Last I looked, people had the legal right to talk about it if someone abused them. Andreas JN466 01:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying, then, that a woman who's been the victim of a crime committed against her by another Wikipedian is allowed to discuss that Wikipedian's identity with the police, but with no one else in her life, away from Wikipedia, because ArbCom wishes to give perpetrators with a Wikipedia account complete immunity from the social consequences of their actions? I have to tell you, that sounds fairly bizarre, and like a complete overreach on the part of ArbCom.

Consider another scenario. Wikipedian A meets with Wikipedian B (real name Joe Bloggs) and is sexually molested. Are you really going to site-ban A if they tell other people what Joe Bloggs did? Especially if there is a risk of Wikipedian B doing the same to others? Are you intending to create a conspiracy of silence, or have you just failed to think this through? Andreas JN466 01:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, if such a thing happens, the police station is the place to handle that. It would also be appropriate to privately bring up the matter to ArbCom or the WMF. But no, such allegations on-wiki would absolutely not be appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You're not just talking about on-wiki discussions, though, Seraphimblade, are you? Andreas JN466 01:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: (1) Lightbreather was sexually harassed, according to your own findings of fact, (2) she discussed the matter away from Wikipedia and tried to find out who her harasser is, (3) you consider that inappropriate and want to site-ban her for doing so. Have I got this right? Andreas JN466 01:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

(1) yes. (2) Yes. (3) No. What was inappropriate was that, after pursuing the issue through proper channels and not agreeing with the outcome, Lightbreather then attempted a kind of vigilante campaign by publically urging others to harass her suspected culprit. There is no moral equivalence between the extremely serious nature of the harassment of Lightbreather, and her (less serious) attempt to encourage harassment of others. But that doesn't make her actions conducive to the Wikipedia environment outlined in the first principle of the PD. And in passing I again note that an editor (not the one referred to by Lightbreather) was site-banned during this case. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You might want to mention that site ban in the remedies, if it was a result of this case. That ban however had nothing to do with the porn images, right? There is a reference to it above in SV's section, saying it was about e-mails. Andreas JN466 08:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

During the case LB was on the receiving end of two sorts of harassment - porn images and emails (I can't remember the chronology off the top of my head). There was conclusive evidence that a Wikipedia editor was responsible for the emails, and has been site banned as a result (this editor has not been named on wiki). As mentioned elsewhere on this page, there is no conclusive evidence about the identity of the person responsible for posting the porn images. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. But you are aware that you appear to be punishing Lightbreather for trying to find the identity of the person responsible for posting the porn images. I imagine that most members of the general public will consider that aspect of your decision very, very odd, and an instance of punishing the victim – while protecting the "privacy" of the perpetrator. If you'd care to look at how attitudes around the reporting of actual physical rape have changed over the past 50 or hundred years, you might be able to see that this is not how present-day society deals with issues of this sort—I feel almost transported back to the Victorian age. This sort of thing generally only happens in countries like Saudi Arabia these days.Andreas JN466 12:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's section

The disagreements among the arbitrators (and on this page) about the principles relating to harassment ought to be bridgeable ... and I think it's unusually important to try to bridge them, as for better or worse, the case may be seen as setting a precedent in this area. I will think about this overnight and try to offer a suggestion tomorrow (Monday). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. We're trying to get this wrapped up but some way to bridge the differences would be helpful. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

There's potential scope for additional findings or remedies (for example see my comment in EvergreenFir's section). But not sure how much work needs to go toward bridging gaps in the current PD, given each proposal already has majority support. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback above. Here are some suggested changes (proposed new language in italics and deletions in strikeout).

Responding to harassment
9) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives himself or herself themselves to have been be harassed or attacked—whether on Wikipedia or off—should not see that harassment as an excuse for violating Wikipedia policy fighting back and attacking those who are harassing them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee and/or, in extreme cases, to the Wikimedia Foundation Office. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards, especially where the harassment has been protracted or severe.

Serious harassment (limitations)
10) It is unacceptable for anyone to be subjected to harassment either on- or off-wiki. However, neither the community nor the Committee is well-equipped to deal with the off-wiki consequences of severe harassment, such as threats to health and safety, sexually oriented harassment, or scurrilous misrepresentations, whether made on- or off-wiki. On-wiki steps are usually limited to reverting, revision-deleting or oversighting, page protection, and blocking, and banning. The advice about denying recognition to trolls and vandals applies equally to harassers. This may counsel in favor of dealing with harassment situations discreetly rather than via public discussion, especially where this is the preference of the victim of the harassment, but it should not be used as a basis for denying the existence of harassment or the need to address it when it occurs. Additionally, the Wikimedia Foundation has issued guidelines for responding to threats of harm. In extreme cases, editors can also notify the Wikimedia Foundation Office or, where there is a basis for doing so, their local law enforcement authorities or and consider lowering their profile until the threat is past.

Off-wiki conduct
The harassment policy states: "Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely."

In dealing with any incident of off-wiki harassment, there are at least two separate questions that must be answered: first, was there off-wiki harassment warranting an on-wiki consequence, and second, can the identify of the harasser be linked with sufficient certainty to a specific Wikipedia editor. There may be instances in which off-wiki harassment warranting an on-wiki sanction has unquestionably occurred, but the harassment cannot be linked, or cannot be linked with sufficient certainty, to a specific Wikipedia account. The fact that no on-wiki action is taken in such circumstances should not be interpreted as diminishing the community's or the Committee's disgust with acts of harassment or their commitment to combatting it.

I hope these proposed changes might address some of the concerns that have been raised about the wording of the principles. From everything I have seen both during and after my service on the Committee, there should be no doubt about the ArbCom's opposition to harassment of editors (regardless of whether one agrees or not with the Committee's evaluation of any particular case or situation). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I have copied over two of your proposals. Thanks, Brad! Your advice is always appreciated. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you found my suggestions helpful. The edits proposed in the middle paragraph of my three might also be germane to some of the concerns others have raised up and down on this page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein’s Section

My first impression was that the proposed sections on harassment were, as @Bosstopher: said within minutes, shameful. I think it should be clear to all of you -- certainly to all of you with a Twitter account -- that they were ill-advised. The project will be best served if these section are immediately withdrawn and considered with some care -- preferably with the advice of people with expertise in harassment generally and sexual harassment specifically.

I will not present an argument against these passages here; I'm not the person from whom you want to hear this news, and I am confident the obvious and powerful arguments against these section as proposed will strike nearly anyone with expertise in the area. In the unlikely event that any of you are interested in my advice or my opinion, of course, I'll be happy to oblige if I am able.

Allowing a bad idea to fester on the page as the likely opinion of some or all of Wikipedia will do the project no good, and could well cause lasting harm. At any rate, be absolutely confident in private that you, or some of you, really want to take this approach before presenting it in public. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And It Begins

This morning, an IP editor arrives on my page [29] to berate me. This might be a sock or a puppet of one of Gamergate’s many banned and blocked editors, but I will not speculate. In fact, it appears that I am required not to speculate, either here or anywhere else outside a court of law.

After a brief ramble comparing Gamergate to Islam, they conclude:

You need to stop before you do something you might regret. Also, I'm gonna guess you were gonna use that last statement as a way of saying I'm threatening you, but I'm telling you this out of concern ...

This is carefully composed, of course, to be chilling but -- under this new policy regime -- perhaps not sanctionable. In conjunction with a vituperative off-site campaign against me -- denouncing me for conflicts of interest for working supporting Elizabeth Warren or for contributing in my field of expertise, insinuating that I might be a pedophile, circulating anti-Semitic cartoons -- this could easily frighten someone who felt vulnerable or who was concerned that future employers might Google their name and find such stuff.

Arbcom’s advice to editors in this situation is, apparently, “let the Wookie win:” lower my profile, let the harassers do as they wish, and they may lose interest and, having accomplished their goals, let me be. Of course, the anonymous harassers might simply continue to smear their victim, as this does them no harm, rewards them on-wiki, gives them vengeance on their former opponents, and stands as a warning to those who might oppose them in the future. More to the point, many Wikipedia editors have employers, spouses, aged parents, or children with whom they might not be eager to discuss the harassers’ fake nudes, scurrilous rumors, or invented fantasies.

"Lowering your profile" is not a panacea, or a solution, or a good idea, or the foundation of a policy that can give you the encyclopedia you want. It is a recipe for disaster. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@MarkBernstein: Lowering your profile does not mean hiding in a cupboard with a blanket over your head. It means avoiding confrontation or escalation, avoiding situations that put you and/or your family directly at risk, and avoiding disclosing (or removing) information that provides a papertrail to your home, school or work. In the wiki context, it can also mean a cleanstart.  Roger Davies ^talk 15:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

All of which place the burden squarely on the victim, especially the new suggestion of a cleanstart. Of course, that means abandoning all the credibility they have accumulated over years of editing, too, while their harassers are unscathed. If the victim errs in any of this -- if they overlook some detail -- now the victim is at fault for the damage -- perhaps catastrophic damage -- the harassment achieves: "you should have deleted your that blog post from 2008, or that LiveJournal comment in 1997!" And of course, if one has any kind of a public profile associated with your WikiName, you're asking people to go underground (along with so many Gamergate victims).

Seriously, @Roger Davies:, did you seek advice from experts in handling sexual harassment when writing this? Even if this is the policy you prefer, its manner of expression invites ridicule. Even here on this page, you are telling women who have been harassed that they should avoid confrontation and they should de-escalate. Then, you significantly impede the victim’s ability to defend themselves. You award every advantage and incentive to harassers and, as far as I can see, scarcely any aid to their victims. It surprises me that you personally and that the committee as a whole actually endorses this; I assume that you simply didn't think things through, that the topic has depths you did not immediately appreciate. There's no shame in that, or not nearly as much as there is in ignoring the mistake. For the sake of the project, run this language by some world-class experts and listen to their advice. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I know the subject has depths but it may be that you are not thinking them through either. The objective is to keep people - of all ages, nationalities, gender and orientations - alive and safe. If, for instance, you're gay and in Iraq or in parts of Africa, fighting fire with fire could get you hanged from a crane in a city square or beaten to death by the police.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And do you not see how this explicitly privileges white cis male editors? That they’re free to edit on Wikipedia, while everyone else may be subjected to off-wiki harassment and, if that happens, it now becomes the victim’s responsibility to avoid confrontation and de-escalate? If they happen to have WikiCred, they must abandon it; if they have tools, they must lose them; if they have a content dispute, they must compromise or accede. And, as you know, some of my colleagues were literally driven underground by harassment, some of it from Wikipedia servers. I know about your cranes. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

White cis males also get harassed on wiki. Typically with false accusations of pedophilia (that's the usual weapon of choice and it can easily lead to real world danger) or threats directed at their friends or family, or with threats to out or to dox. Harassment/cyberbullying is ubiquitous.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can be subject to harassment, but different groups are more likely to experience it, and more likely to experience certain types. This case concerns sexual harassment of a female editor; I don't think it's inappropriate to focus specifically on that. This focus is not denial that other types of harassment occur. I agree that Wikipedia needs to address the broader issue of harassment, but the continued insistence that we should not be focusing on gendered, sexual harassment in this case is coming off as refusal that that is what happened in this instance, and that it's a serious problem that does need to be addressed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. One of the FOFs explicitly talks about "off-wiki sexual harassment" and always has done.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Presumably, you (@Roger Davies:) know that's exactly what happened to me last week, in vengeance for thwarting Gamergate, and perhaps you're adding this little bit of on-wiki publicity to that off-wiki diatribe as a special barb or punishment. Great. Do your colleagues all concur, or was this on your own ticket?

You say, harassment is ubiquitous. What are you doing to stop that? Where in this proposed decision is the sign that Wikipedia cares deeply about harassment, rather than simply wishing to deflect litigation in its aftermath?

To say that harassment also affects white cis men is, of course, hardly adequate, as its burdens fall disproportionately on the disempowered and the invisible -- on those you are telling to lower their profile. Gender Gap Task Force, then Gamergate, then Lightbreather: the law in its majesty alike forbids harassment of men and women, but for some reason it's often women (and their dwindling allies here) who keep finding themselves brought to these pages, and who keep being told to better comport themselves and to lower their profile.

Had you consulted experts in the area, you might have saved yourself some embarrassment and the project some opprobrium, or at least you might have had their opinion to bring to your (and Wikipedia’s) defense. I had hoped this was an accident of chance or inattention, but it seems this is a mistake you are determined to make. I wish for the good of the project I could dissuade you. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Pudeo's section

Just a comment on off-wiki harassment and whether harassment excuses behauvior. Unless off-wiki conduct can be linked to specific Wikipedia editors with clear evidence, it shouldn't be taken into account. The early Gamergate controversies included doxxing and very hostile off-wiki stuff, but it simply isn't actionable when it's fully outside of Wikipedia. Otherwise it's a moot point and apparently taking some of that into account here simply distracted the ArbCom from the actual issue of Ligthbreather's on-wiki behauvior and this case took over 2 months.

Harassment doesn't justify bad behauvior elsewhere. Remember that one of the worst-behaving editors blocked in the GGTF case tried to shield all criticism with a "it's me vs. the sexists" view point. While I'm very much opposed to that toxic commentary on Wikipedia editors present even in Wikipedia criticism sites, it's not actionable and least should it excuse any misconduct here. What if some contentious editors in the Israeli-Palestine dispute justified their improrer conduct by saying it's simply about them being a target of anti-Semitism/Islamophobia? Racism and sexism is wrong, but them justifying behauvior is a different subject especially if it has happened completely outside Wikipedia. --Pudeo' 02:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate's section

Just to note, I am presumably one of the individuals referenced by Bosstopher as suggesting it was not harassment as the thread Lightbreather raised this was one I started about the case. It was not a reference to any functionaries or arbitrators. Every definition of harassment I have read suggests it has to be repeated unwanted behavior and that there must be an intent that the behavior negatively affects the person alleged to have been harassed. As far as I am aware, neither of those criteria apply to the specific incident everyone is discussing. That does not mean I think it is appropriate or moral. ArbCom has previously found certain extreme or grotesque forms of off-wiki incivility as sanctionable even if they did not qualify as harassment, so I don't think that inherently limits their scope for taking action should they confidently identify the person responsible.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Barberio's Section

There's cited "FBI Advice" about harassment victims keeping a "low profile". I'd like to make you aware that this advice you're citing is probably out-dated by about a couple of decades. It's now well understood that asking harassment victims who have already been targeted to "lower their profile" does nothing to improve their safety, because they are already a target at this point so being high-profile/low-profile does nothing to offer more or less protection. Asking someone who had been high-profile to step back and become low-profile may in fact incite an escalation based on the victim being put in a weaker position.

Also, I strongly caution that you may misunderstand what these terms mean. It is basically impossible for someone who is a target for harassment on Wikipedia to step back to being "low-profile" as in remaining private, their entire activity on Wikipedia is public and thus "high-profile". It would require them to drop their current user name and adopt a new one, in order to be "low-profile" in terms understood by the people you're citing.

I strongly urge you to reconsider your statement, as it is a misinterpretation of advice that is not only outdated, but taken out of context and misapplied in this area. --Barberio 12:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why I have opposed including the advice on this page. If we simply refer to a page elsewhere that contains the advice, those who need it are only one click away and that page can be kept up to date with the latest advice by people who are more knowledgeable about the subject than we are. Anything we include on this page will remain static once the case closes, while the advice will likely evolve over time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

As someone who went through serious harassment on Wikipedia I can tell you that nobody had any advice of any real value, not the foundation, not the police. I wish we had a solution or even good advice but we don't. Keeping a "low profile" was not helpful because as Barberio said I was already a target. Involving the police accomplished exactly nothing due the the use of proxies. Let us not pretend we have any good advice on the matter. Chillum 15:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Protonk's section

A few comments.

1. This case was a month late. After extending the deadline multiple times the drafting arbs decided to throw out the concept of a deadline altogether and leave editors following (and much more importantly, involved in) the case very little information as to when their fate would be decided. When asked about these delays the response from the arbs can best be described as indifferent. I find this completely unacceptable, especially since the resulting planks of the decisions don't seem to have benefited from a month of contemplation. I get it. This isn't a job. It's a stressful volunteer position. And arbitrators have a lot of things competing for that volunteer interest. But arbcom holds a considerable amount of power over all of us--we should at least expect they care enough about that power to bother updating a deadline even when some new debate (with all its enticing too-ing and fro-ing) inevitably crops up and interests them more than the job at hand.
2. The section on responding to harassment is offensive and unacceptable. As advice (see this comment from Roger Davies) it is inaccurate, outdated and dangerous, as has been explained above. But it is not advice. Does anyone, for a fucking second, think that the plain meaning of that finding is to give editors some options for dealing with harassment? It is an admonition to "lay low or else". There are an infinite number of places the drafting arbitrators could have used to advice editors facing harassment, the findings of a case sanctioning an editors for responding in a fashion thusly proscribed is not one of them. This is (should it pass) the considered position of the committee and therefore the final de facto position of the english wikipedia community.
3. "The fact that no on-wiki action is taken in such circumstances should not be interpreted as diminishing the community's or the Committee's disgust at acts of harassment or their commitment to combatting it." GEEE THANKS. Why not just write about how many black friends the committee has.
4. "Lightbreather posted inappropriately to an off-wiki website apparently with the objective of having the participants identify a Wikipedia editor by name" I won't bother expanding much beyond Bosstopher's comments, but this is pretty rich. Especially so given the committee's studied reticence to handle any off-wiki conduct in the GG case. I'll also point out that if the committee fails to reach consensus to act then they have failed to act. They don't get credit for some members wanting to act. I see from this talk page that some committee members are under the impression that they may include this piece of evidence but somehow not have it seen as part of the reasoning for the site ban. That is inexplicable to me. If it is in the findings of fact and the resulting decision is a site ban, then it is part of the reason they were site banned. If you don't think that piece of evidence is worthy of (or contributes to) banning someone, then the place to dissent is on the decision, not the decision talk page. As it stands, the committee now sees a woman trying to find the identity of her harasser as actionable specifically because it threatens that harassers social status on wikipedia.

More later, perhaps. Protonk (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)