Unbroken Chain (talk | contribs) →HiaB: recusal request made |
TotientDragooned (talk | contribs) →Status? (Totient's section): new section |
||
Line 349: | Line 349: | ||
===Request made regarding GW === |
===Request made regarding GW === |
||
For the drafting arbs and community I started a formal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Formal_Motion_for_Gorilla_Warfare_to_recuse_in_ongoing_case.| 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. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 14:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
For the drafting arbs and community I started a formal [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee#Formal_Motion_for_Gorilla_Warfare_to_recuse_in_ongoing_case.| 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. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 14:30, 27 June 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? [[User:TotientDragooned|TotientDragooned]] ([[User talk:TotientDragooned|talk]]) 15:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:23, 27 June 2015
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
General comments
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:
- 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. |
|
- 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)
Response to Djembayz' section
- @Djembayz: Thank you! Not only for what you've written here, but on the Evidence talk page,[3] 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. |
|
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[4] was extended, and my talk-page access was blocked too,[5] in response to my response[6] 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[7] and me, but when, less than 24 hours later, Scalhotrod posted this:[8]
- @Karanacs:, I agree, but until yesterday I was simply staying away, not compiling lists[9]. 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)
- 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 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)
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,[10] and I'm perturbed to see that it has been restored by another logged-out editor.[11] 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:
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) |
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)
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)
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) |
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. |
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) |
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)
|
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)
|
SlimVirgin's section
I want to thank Djembayz for her posts (diffs: [12][13][14][15]). 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)
- 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)
- 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 ...") [16] 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, 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 ...") [16] Other sites were used for the harassment but LB was targeted because she edits Wikipedia. Sarah (talk) 21:24, 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)
|
@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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
|
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:
|
HiaB
User:GorillaWarfare is this [17] an admin action or arb action? I'm curious if you bothered to read [18]. 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)
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)
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)