Jump to content

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

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Lightbreather

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Philippe (WMF) (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 16 July 2015 (Response from WMF). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
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).[reply]

Note: Upon review this wording is unique to the Lightbreather case and has been posted in five places:
  1. User talk:Lightbreather
  2. User talk:Scalhotrod
  3. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard
  4. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed decision
  5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
Give that I will move this section to the talk page of the proposed decision in Lightbreather.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks, email received. Also the poster to the workshop has self-reverted; it is indeed closed. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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)[reply]
capeo NOUN 1. Act of challenging a bull with a cloak. (m) Lightbreather (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scalhotrod has changed his user page to "retired" and the evidence phase is over. Lightbreather (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Lightbreather, I'm updated the AC template so the Proposed Decision page reflects the current status of the arbitrators. If you do a hard refresh, you'll see that the numbers on the page have changed to reflect that there are just two inactive admins for this case. Liz Read! Talk! 15:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Response to Djembayz' section

  • @Djembayz: Thank you! Not only for what you've written here, but on the Evidence talk page,[4] where you made two points that I agree are key to this case: 1. The importance of the events of last July, and 2. The implications this case could have for those who seek interaction bans as a way to address harassment.
  • @Roger Davies: We have already banned half a dozen or so accounts and investigations are still on-going.
Which accounts? I'm only aware of one.
--Lightbreather (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Roger was referring to one account and a number of socks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is not the place for general discussion.  Roger Davies talk 08:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

For the record

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

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

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

not a thing was done about it.

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

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

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

I had intended to leave this as private, but as you keep bringing it up on-wiki I will respond to you here. I made the interaction ban two-way because I felt it was not unlikely that you would post allegations against Scalhotrod on-wiki to which he would not be able to respond. As you were later blocked for violating the injunction in this case by posting allegations on wiki I feel that the two-way interaction ban was the correct course of action and I will not be reversing that decision however many times and in however many forums you ask. You may appeal it at AE, like any other discretionary sanction, after the injunction in this case expires (unless any aspect of the final decision in this case prohibits that). Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I intended to keep it private, too, until you deleted Scalhotrod's comment. I think that was the wrong thing to do, and since you wouldn't restore the comment, I brought my complaint here, so that the way this was handled is known to followers of this case, and not just to the committee. (My request to restore it didn't fall under the injunction, as it had nothing to do with allegations of off-wiki harassment.)
I did not and do not feel that I violated the injunction, as I explained previously. Obviously, some committee members disagreed. Also, I believe I have only asked you once to consider a 1-way ban and only asked you once to restore Scal's comment. My only purpose in mentioning them here, as I've already said, is to have a record of my requests and of your answers. If I have asked either of these things of you more than once, I apologize. As I posted yesterday, the stress of the length of this case - and the added difficulty of the injunction - has made it increasingly hard to participate. (I assume the committee did not mean for the injunction to be a full-blown gag order.) Lightbreather (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hat/hab request

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

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

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

Delete WP:ILLEGIT comments, please

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

Lightbreather, in this case, the arbitrators have taken the lead in deciding which comments are hatted and which they choose to respond to. But they are paying attention to this talk page and will take action they feel is necessary. Liz Read! Talk! 01:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly hope this is addressed. My block in November was for participating at the GGTF ArbCom while logged out, and a big deal was made of how wrong that is. To treat this differently would be a double-standard. Lightbreather (talk) 01:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The committee are aware and will take action as appropriate if this is a user editing while logged out. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the comment. Apologies for missing this section before. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SlimVirgin's section

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

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

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

Please remove

The edit in question has already been removed. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Twenty (20) IP addresses participated in the GGTF ArbCom:

  1. 2.125.151.139
  2. 12.249.243.118
  3. 61.70.142.155
  4. 61.235.249.163
  5. 67.255.123.1
  6. 69.16.147.185
  7. 71.11.1.204
  8. 72.223.98.118
  9. 76.72.20.218
  10. 80.174.78.59
  11. 87.254.87.183
  12. 90.213.181.169
  13. 94.54.249.249
  14. 96.254.99.51
  15. 122.162.75.136
  16. 122.177.11.190
  17. 176.28.103.210
  18. 189.109.13.162
  19. 204.101.237.139
  20. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Proposed principles, findings, etc.

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

  • 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)[reply]

User:DramaMonger

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

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)[reply]

@Chess: What it says is that a clean start is NOT[22] an option for me! Lightbreather (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is, by following the policies and guidelines about how to deal with harassment (other than ignoring it), I have interaction bans. Therefore, I have to remain an identified harassed person (complainer) IF I ever want to edit in the future. Lightbreather (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies: So, IF I ever want to resume editing, may I apply for a clean start? Considering the scope of the harassment I've received, on- and off-wiki, and that my ibans have been about getting others off my back (rather than the other way around), that seems reasonable. Lightbreather (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L235 and Liz: Some arbs have started voting to close the case, but this questions remain unanswered.

Lightbreather, with the ban currently passing, there really is no point in discussing the possibility of a clean start; if and when you decide to appeal your ban, ArbCom may discuss the possibility of granting you an exception. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Salvio: Cleanstart reads in part that it is not available to ":Any user who has active bans, blocks or sanctions (including, but not limited to those listed here)." A site ban is presently passing in the PD, and there are also active sanctions via the various I-bans. This means CLEANSTART is not presently an option. This may change if/when the site ban is successfully appealed at some future point, as there may not then be any active sanctions. Until then an attempt at editing under a different username would be ban evasion. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I only wish you had shown such foresight at the point you started editing.

It is important the record not allow this comment to go unchallenged. The findings now passing show that your conduct has for some time been problematic. You cannot dismiss this with, "Yes, I did all that, but so did others." I don't accept that the conduct of others has been as disruptive as yours, but even if it was – that scarcely excuses your own transgressions. I cannot emphasise how disruptive to the project it is to be an editor who drains the community's administrative resources, and who hampers collaboration, for a period of years. This is why we arrived at this decision today. AGK [•] 03:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That might be why you arrived at this decision. I certainly did not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"We" is the committee as a whole. As a dissenter to remedy 1 you plainly were excluded and do not need to expressly point that out at every turn. It was shorthand. AGK [•] 16:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: The evidence I shared on Wikipediocracy showed NO addresses, and the few places where a surname appeared it was redacted. I shared it in a members-only area, and the only reason I shared it was to show just how convincing it is. I also asked other members to not share it outside the (members-only) forum. The only reason I went to WPO in the first place was that I was completely astonished that the evidence (and you ArbCom and functionaries got more than I shared on WPO) didn't result in the off-wiki harasser being banned from Wikipedia. Create a WPO account and see for yourself. Same as I asked women involved in this fiasco to join the Systers Wikipedia mailing list to see that this case was not discussed there. But no. Instead, everyone wants to hypothesize about what I'm doing.

As for who was the vigilante in this case, how about the person who committed the sexual harassment? What do you think his motive was in posting those pictures? It was his idea of "justice," plain and simple.

Finally, you said that if none of the harassment I experienced during the case had taken place the results of the case would have been pretty much the same. I disagree. We'll never know what the outcome would have been, because the harassment put everyone off their game - especially me. Having a case brought against me was stressful enough, but to discover the off-wiki harassment halfway through the case, and to have more dumped on me because I spoke up about it, well - I almost lost my mind a couple of times. And now that the case is over all but over, I'm being kicked while I leave the courtroom. It's a fitting finale. Lightbreather (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you revealed the address, I was saying that the address might be revealed at WO - I was thinking that would probably be done by someone else. I'm pleased to hear that there was some redaction there, although the damage was already done if I recall the earlier thread correctly, and I doubt that the readaction today(?) was in time to stop others from seeing it. But you know that at least one member threatened the editor's friends and family and I don't doubt that member's ability to find the address. I don't need to hypothesize about the threats, I saw them when the thread was still public. And I didn't call anyone a vigilante, I said "actions that might result in vigilante justice." What was done to you was terrible - as would be vigilante action taken against anyone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 15:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I disagree with many of the things you've written on this page. Here are a few:

  1. Lightbreather is facing a ban for repeated and significant breaches of Wikipedia policy, not for being female and not for being a victim of harassment.
  2. If any editor, of any gender, is a positive contributor to the project and doesn't edit war, forum shop, out, harass, etc, then they will not get banned. Any editor, of any gender, that does those things will get banned....
  3. The reason why we are here is that Lightbreather has a history of edit warring, forum shopping, battleground behaviour, WP:OWNership and not dropping the stick.
Thryduulf, my hounders and harassers have warred, shopped, outed, and engaged in battleground, ownership, and WP:STICK behavior, etc. I asked to have them added to the case as involved parties; they were not added. One was banned at an unrelated SPI while this case was underway. Of the remaining six active editors, all are men.
4. There are many women on this site who are challenging the status quo without engaging in any of that.
Name five. More importantly, describe how they've improved the editing environment for women in the past five years.
SlimVirgin created the GGTF three months before I became an active editor. She invited me to join it last summer, and I was immediately followed there by one of my harassers. Last fall, as you know, it (the task force) was the subject of an ArbCom case in which the only people site banned were one woman and one editor of unspecified gender. (The committee of 12 included 1 woman arbitrator.) GorillaWarfare recently made a tough call based on the GGTF ArbCom remedies, and the status-quo defenders are calling for her head. Rosiestep, whom I admire greatly, agreed to help me moderate the private, off-wiki Systers Wikipedia mailing list that was created after the proposal for a women-only space on-wiki was pilloried, but when Eric Corbett attacked her, she changed her mind - and I told her that I understand! So please tell me which women editors are successfully challenging the Wikipedia status quo? Lightbreather (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Roger Davies and SlimVirgin: I have retired indefinitely from editing on Wikipedia. I decided that many weeks ago and only stayed semi-active while waiting for the case to close. Even if I wanted to resume editing now, I couldn't agree to the indefinte gun-control topic ban. It is the subject area that I want to edit (when I'm not hounded and harassed), so agreeing not to edit there would make me an indentured servant. Also, aside from the fact that some of my harassers have stopped editing or been topic banned from GC, the pro-gun editors are still the majority (including at least two obvious socks), so no doubt in time I would be hounded and harassed again - but this time from an even more disadvantaged position than I was when I first started editing here, wide-eyed, almost two years ago.

Women who want to "succeed" on Wikipedia have basically two options: be one of the boys and support the male-majority POV on things like civility and gun control, or keep your head down and walk away at the first sign of aggressive behavior. If you keep your head down and walk away from disputes, you probably won't get into trouble. If you are one of the boys, the boys will support you if you get into trouble. But if you challenge the status quo, you will be POV railroaded.

Now, I am logging out, going to breakfast with my youngest son, and getting on with my Wikipedia retirement. Lightbreather (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know.  Roger Davies talk 18:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The proposed decision will be a further three days late. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further matters have been raised, which will likely delay things by another day or two.  Roger Davies talk 08:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed decision posting has been delayed and is now scheduled to appear on June 26. Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
??Spartaz Humbug! 16:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the answers given in #Chess section below. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

This is the case that never ends
It just goes on and on my friends
We're all waiting patiently for this case to close
But we'll be waiting here forever 'cuz we know....
(Repeat)

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

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

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

@Roger Davies: what would be the procedure if Lightbreather broke one or another of the restrictions? Would it be reported to AE, to an individual arbitrator, or to the arbitrator's mailing list? Or are you thinking SlimVirgin would be responsible for reporting or dealing with breaches? What would be the consequences of a breach of the restrictions? Would the site ban come into immediate effect, or would blocks be applied? Also, if the mentoring/monitoring is time-limited, what happens at the end of that period? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42's section

Further comments by email to ArbCom please.  Roger Davies talk 08:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments on proposed decision

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

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

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)[reply]

Gaijin42, thanks for bringing that to our attention, it's been corrected. Liz Read! Talk! 19:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Liz psst, you missed a ]. I'd fix it myself, except for the strong instruction against non arb/clerks editing the page. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, L235. I was sure that I had fixed it. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing proposals

(pinging the arbs/funcs that have most directly commented on this issue) Thryduulf GorillaWarfare While I understand the comments from the Arbs that there is a lack of consensus for findings/remedies regarding the source of the harassment, is there a reason an (anonymized?) finding/remedy has not been included to more clearly document the committees opinion of the matter? I realize that the committee can't/won't drag the name through the mud of the potentially accused, but something like "Redacted/Unnamed editor X posted off-wiki sexual harassment" and "redacted/unnamed editor X (sanction goes here)" are not proposed even if they do not/won't pass? Right now unless one reads through all of the talk sections (which are quite complicated since they aren't threaded) its difficult to even see that the committee considered any action in this area. (this would apply equally as well to the sanctions for the email issues etc that have already been applied, seems like they should be documented as part of the case too) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, and sorry I couldn't respond more substantively earlier. I don't think it makes sense to post a finding like what you suggest, because it was the functionaries who considered this issue. Though arbitrators are members of the functionaries team, and some of us weighed in on that discussion, a vote like that would seem to override any decision the functionaries made. Hypothetically, if a majority of arbs voted for "Redacted/Unnamed editor X posted off-wiki sexual harassment," then what would we do? Supersede the functionaries decision? I do think a finding of fact acknowledging the functionaries' decision makes sense based on your reasoning above, though, and will propose one now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare to some degree yes, I think you should. The community elected you guys, not the functionaries. even if you all vote oppose in deference to the functionary information it should be in the ArbCom's voice. This is like SCOTUS delegating their ruling to the ABA. The ABA should get to write an amicus brief, not the ruling. (apologies to NewyorkbradGaijin42 (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is true to some extent, but though the functionaries are appointed by the Arbitration Committee, the community is involved. I generally feel that the community trusts the functionaries with decisions like this, and would hope that if that was not the case, they would make it known. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare Your finding isn't exactly true is it either? You guys did already do some bans for the email harassment did you not?Gaijin42 (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, "offwiki harassment" includes the other incident. I've added it to the FoF: [23] GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Reply to protonk

Protonk If she wasn't able to obtain additional evidence, and the functionaries found the available evidence insufficient for linking, I'm not sure what you are wanting the committee to do. One can argue that the evidence is in fact sufficient and that the functionaries either made a mistake, or are ignoring/biased, but nobody appears to be making those arguments here. Saying "action should be taken" is well and good, but thats either a platitude (if you don't have something specific in mind) or lynch mob mentality (if you do have something specific, and don't care about the evidence - unless you have an argument about the actual strength of the evidence (which is a bit of a catch 22 as discussing the evidence directly here would just get you blocked... but thats a different issue))Gaijin42 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What this case is amply demonstrating is the absolute impossibility of ArbCom continuing to respond to problems involving off-wiki cyberbullying. I cannot begin to understand why anyone should imagine that a bunch of part-time, unpaid, untrained, volunteers without any resources should be able to do a better job than, say, law enforcement. The internet is simply too big, too complicated and too prone to unpredictable escalation for us to handle. My take is that from now on the committee should deal only with on-wiki matters and leave interventions about off-wiki stuff to the lawyers and law enforcement. I shall notify my colleagues about this comment.  Roger Davies talk 14:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other continuing to be in the loop, such that we can take on-wiki action in the minority of cases where that is possible (e.g. as we were able to with the editor site banned during this case) and collate knowledge (e.g. if three different people independently complained about the same editor to three different law enforcement bodies) I agree with Roger. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would not envision any inter-police liaison role for us. It would be easy though for the WMF to take it on.  Roger Davies talk 14:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agreed that we need to either handle all offwiki misbehavior (which simply isn't possible—we don't have the resources, training, or time to do so) or none of it. I would support a motion or change to the arbitration policy that explicitly states that the ArbCom cannot handle offwiki issues, and directs people to contact the WMF and/or law enforcement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doing something this important as best we can is better than no one doing it at all, if those are the choices. Changing ArbPol (which we don't have the power to do, only the community does), will not force the WMF to start acting on these matters. Yes, they damned well should be doing it, but we also should not be abrogating our own community-ratified power to investigate such matters unless the WMF is willing to take on the breadth of things we handle. We do a lot of things, many of which the community would be better at (looking at you, BASC), but in dealing with off-site harassment there are only three choices; the WMF, us, and no one. The first is optimal, but will the WMF act in only the very most extreme cases? The third is so unacceptable that the second is preferable, even though we are bad enough at it that the burden of proof is quite high. (Hell, no, we don't need to have an police liaison, though.) Would they have banned the user that we did ban for such during this case? Or, in a hypothetical universe where we didn't do this, would that user still be an editor in good standing? Because that, I believe, would be the practical reality of this idea. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be in this business. I just don't want it undone, either. Courcelles (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R to arbs

Thryduulf Roger Davies GorillaWarfare At least I personally see the truth that the committee and even WMF is hampered in what they can do to truly stop or address harassment off wiki. On the other hand, what is entirely in arb/wmf/communities control tho is what we do about it on wiki. LB's outing of her evidence was inappropriate. On the other hand, that outing is what gives me the ability to judge the evidence. This situation is a bit convoluted/confusing because everyone is having to pretend that the evidence is private, when in fact the evidence is very public to anyone who cares. I say this as someone who has had a very adversarial relationship with LB (and agree with the findings/remedies), and who has had a cordial and to a degree politically aligned relationship with the unnamed editor - I personally think LB has identified the harasser beyond a level required for on wiki sanction. Certainly people have been indef duck blocked on much less. The only explanation I can come up with are that either there is additional evidence that somehow detracts/contradicts LB's evidence (in which case if you said so, it could help assuage things here), or the functionaries have a dramatically different standard of evidence. If its the latter, I think much of the "AC/WMF doesn't care" griping you are seeing may be using that discrepancy as a proxy (or data-point perhaps) for "The wiki doesn't care about harassment".

Several members of the committee has suggested here that off wiki conduct should be dropped from the jurisdiction of the ArbCom. If so I think that is likely to result in some perverse incentives/results, but if that is the direction the committee is leaning, It does seem unfair to apply the finding against LB for her off wiki conduct and then immediately afterwards say "we don't deal with off wiki conduct". Its up to the committee to decide to keep the finding or not, and also to judge if any of the remedies would change (perhaps not) in the absence of that finding. But the contradiction/confusion is real, and a good deal of the criticism coming the committee's way is justified (although it seems there are many different and sometimes contradictory reasons people are upset) Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen what evidence LB has presented elsewhere so I can't say whether it is complete or not. The key thing for me is that there are at least four links in the chain between the account on the external website and a Wikipedia user account, having seen all the evidence I find only one of them to proven to a sufficient standard. Regarding your second paragraph, we are not saying "we do not deal with off-wiki conduct" we are saying "we should not [but presently do] handle off-wiki harassment issues". Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I have not seen what evidence LB has presented elsewhere" and "having seen all the evidence" - which is it? Mr Potto (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Purely for the record, I have seen the evidence that Lightbreather has presented elsewhere, and it looks pretty fucking conclusive to me. (Obviously I will not repeat a word of it here as I'd no doubt be hanged, drawn and quartered for daring to help expose a misogynist thug.) Mr Potto (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lightbreather tells us that she has sent us all the evidence she has and I have also seen the evidence dug up by the functionaries' and arbitrators' investigations. Lightbreather mentioned she has shared some of the evidence she has on Wikipediocracy - i.e. unless she has presented new evidence at WO (in which case why has she not sent it to us?) it is a subset of what I have seen, but I do not know what subset that is. At first glance the evidence is pretty convincing, but when you actually look closely, particularly at the links between locations, the evidence is not, in the opinion of most (but not an absolute majority) arbs and functionaries, strong enough to rule out coincidences and/or joe jobs. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ThryduulfPerhaps its just a wording/grammar issue, but if there was not an absolute majority of people who thought it ruled out coincidences, doesn't that mean that there was an absolute majority that did think it ruled out coincidences? Or did you mean > 50% but < 2/3 did not find it convincing? Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was not a formal vote taken at any stage so I can't give exact numbers. There are a few possible positions to take regarding the evidence linking the poster of the harassment (A) to the editor (B):

  1. A = B with enough certainty to take action. For action to be taken there would need to be consensus for this position.
  2. A probably = B, but not with enough certainty to take action.
  3. A may or may not be B, can't tell either way
  4. It is more likely than not that A is not B
  5. It is (almost) certain that A is not B

>50% of people support(ed) positions 2 or 3, but there was not consensus for any one position. There was at least one person supporting each position. Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ps. As noted previously there was also no consensus about what standard of proof was required to take action, so people were judging whether they supported action based on their own standard. This means someone supporting position 1 could, at least in theory, believe the evidence was less convincing than someone supporting position 2 but believed the required standard to be lower. I have no idea if this happened in practice as not everyone articulated what their standard was and even for those that did I did not keep track of any correlation between standard and position on the evidence (and before anyone asks, I am not re-reading several hundred emails to find out now). Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf thank you. Although there is always going to be differences of opinion of what the correct opinions should be, I believe this type of transparency can only help. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capeo's Section

This seems to have run its course,  Roger Davies talk 08:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

MarkBernstein I'm not real sure you've read the entirety of the case here. You ask why even take the case and instead just ban for battleground activity? For one, LB should have the right to defend herself against the evidence presented. It's evidence that spans a couple years and required a case to sort through it rather than just an outright ban. Secondly, the overarching reason for the resulting ban IS battleground behavior. Lastly, according to the posts below, LB was being assisted as much as possible in identifying the person who posted the pictures during the case when she took it upon herself to dox the user she suspected it was. Is that how you want stuff to work around here? By her own admission she clearly had no direct proof yet went ahead with it anyway. I have no idea if she was correct or not but what matters is, if she wasn't, she just doxxed someone for no reason. And that's the inherent danger of publicly invading privacy like that and why it's serious no matter how good the intentions are. If you're wrong there's no taking it back. Capeo (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barberio, that is absolutely not what was cited in the findings. I invite you to actually read through the evidence and the better grasp the timeline of events. The harassment in question, the harassing emails and sexual harassment, took place after this case started. What is being referred to in the findings is that LB had, in the past on more than one occasion, claimed a user was harassing her but what was happening was a content dispute or simply a disagreement. On a side note, I'm pretty sure we're not supposed to be threading discussions. Capeo (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather, you state, "my ibans have been about getting others off my back (rather than the other way around)" but I'm having a hard time understanding how you came to that conclusion after the findings of this case. One of them is even a one-way. Capeo (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, when you say "re the community (including admins and arbcom and everyone else) taking the on-wiki sniping more seriously, especially where it relates to harassment according to identifiable personal characteristics" you do realize the massive can of worms that would open, right? And I'm not saying it's not something that should be examined but this community often struggles to handle conflicts onsite. Imagine ANI swamped with links to Tweets, WO posts, Reddit threads and personal blogs. Imagine way too much personal information being thrown about publicly. It could be a nightmare. Just look at recent ArbCom cases. Many involved have activity offsite that could be construed as sniping. LB's tweets and blog, Mark Bernstein is highly active offsite, the GG Reddit crew who edit here and daily write awful things about users here. And I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg. Capeo (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm talking about on-wiki stuff, not off-wiki. The kind of pointless baiting sometimes seen at ANI and elsewhere. We can't do that much to control what people do in blogs, tweets, etc but we can work at reducing harassment on this website. Not with new rules, or lists of bad words; just by enforcing a lower tolerance for people whose obvious intent at any point in time is to irritate others rather than edit the encyclopaedia. I suppose I'd add that this won't be achieved by an arbcom motion, it needs to be a collective community action. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Euryalus. Even though I went so far as to quote you above I still somehow misread on-wiki for off-wiki, making pretty much everything I said above pointless. I was having a second discussion elsewhere about off-wiki activity so it was on my mind. I agree entirely with you. Capeo (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, you keep making positive pronouncements of hounding/harassment in regards to the participants in the GGTF case, LB's ANI's and other claims and all the events leading up to this case in general yet repeatedly when the evidence was laid before the community or ArbCom the conclusion was that these incidents were the result of battleground behavior, protracted disputes over POVs or some variation of all of the above. I mean, have you gone through the diffs presented in evidence? They don't even really touch on LB's first huge blow out that lead to her topic ban which was with another woman editor, an incident she never ever dropped the stick about to this day. And that was just the first stick that was never to dropped again. LB wasn't shy about letting her POV be known and I'd say the evidence is pretty clear that if you were on the wrong side of that POV, or even percieved to be, then even slight disagreements could be an indication that you were part of the problem that had to be fought tooth and nail. This attitude led to a lot of sticks being picked up by LB. And I think the diffs show them being swung completely unbidden way too often. You also seem to forget that we she didn't find traction with her suggestions she was the first of the participants in the GGTF stuff to take it off wiki, linking it on Jimbo's page no less, and started quoting WP users completely out of context and publicly shaming them cause, you know, that's a great way to lesson tensions and isn't indicitive of a battleground attitude at all.

Then we have the topic area of gun control where if consensus was against her she'd try pointy workarounds or just edit war. The most telling diff being where she wholesale reverted a bunch of edits and admitted she didn't even look at them or, even better, when she asked admins to essentially put a moratorium on editing certain articles because she was unable to edit at the time. This leaves aside the socking, the fruitless (and frankly sometimes absurd) SPIs, the forum shopping, etc. All of this is on the evidence page. That's the meat of this case. Now if I'm understanding you correctly, and if I'm not please correct me, it's your contention that the many times LB claimed hounding or harassment and the community saw it differently that was a failing of the community to recognize harassment when it was occurring. Though I disagree with that conclusion wholesale, for the sake of argument let's say such is the case. Go back and look at the diffs in evidence and explain to me how even accepting that premise would account for the behavior outlined. Capeo (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  1. As Arbcom, you are not powerless over the ANI spaces.
  2. You work for an organization with $50 million / year and 500 administrators to enforce.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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?)
  12. 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.
  13. 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?
  14. 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.
  15. 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?
  16. 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?
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. "Anything is difficult when it is done unwillingly." --Djembayz (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Open source code of conduct

  • Taking a deep breath now, and trying to avoid acting so grouchy, and putting this out there for you: howabout trying out a more modern system yourselves, as a group, like the TODO Open Code of Conduct, designed for open source communities.

So you can't fully implement it on your own as Arbcom-- well, you could least make a recommendation that a simpler system, possibly along these lines-- would be a good idea. You could say, we want to use these principles in our enforcement tasks. And even if you don't think you have any influence, it is perfectly acceptable to state that as volunteers, you'd prefer support from paid, trained WMF staff for the anti-harassment tasks, if it would help your work.

The alternative, attempting to re-invent the wheel as Arbcom and create your own legal system from scratch, is not resulting in a self-policing website. It is resulting in bureacratic gobbledygook, game playing, and an awful lot of bad feeling all around. The general public's patience with bizarre, emotionally draining interactions on this website, which create intractable problems and threats necessitating calls to law enforcement ... the general public's patience with this is not going to last forever. The attempts to self-police in the 2 gender-related cases here are wobbling along towards an outcome falling somewhere inbetween condoning gender-based harassment or outright discrimination on the basis of sex. This isn't necessarily due to ill will, or because the volunteers on Arbcom are "bad people", it's because neither Arbcom nor administrators are getting training, and hence are making the usual beginners' mistakes that people make when they are unfamiliar with the standard tips and tricks that work to keep communities healthy. Sure, you can develop your own system for dealing with diversity and anti-harassment by trial and error-- the problem is all the people you will burn out and all the ill-will you will create in the process of making those errors.

Importance of respect

Again, I don't dispute that there were legitimate concerns regarding the interaction style of the editor in this case. What I do dispute is the idea that people deserve to be harassed, because they are:
-- obnoxious in their interactions with others
-- committing infractions of our immense, complicated set of rules
-- not writing enough featured articles
-- not cool enough to be a part of the website
-- not technical enough to understand that it's just the Internet and insults don't count
-- editing from an IP address
-- a member of a group of people whose characteristics somebody doesn't like
-- [or some other excuse here].

I would like to see an outcome in this decision that says something along the lines that everyone volunteering here deserves respect, with no exceptions, and everyone volunteering here, with no exceptions, will be required to actively show respect to others. --Djembayz (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent set of proposals. While I do not believe that proposals favouring a specific group have much chance of succeeding, I believe there is considerable scope for effective across-the-board change aimed at prohibiting the personalisation of disputes. This would help create an environment in which it is difficult for harassment or hounding to flourish undetected.  Roger Davies talk 14:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Davies, I am pleasantly suprised that these proposals are receiving a positive response. May I get Arbcom's agreement in principle to enforcement of section 5 of the TODO Open Code of Conduct, listed out below, in the user interaction spaces?

"*Be careful in the words that you choose: we are a community of professionals, and we conduct ourselves professionally. Be kind to others. Do not insult or put down other participants. Harassment and other exclusionary behavior aren’t acceptable. This includes, but is not limited to:

    • Violent threats or language directed against another person.
    • Discriminatory jokes and language.
    • Posting sexually explicit or violent material.
    • Posting (or threatening to post) other people’s personally identifying information (“doxing”).
    • Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms.
    • Unwelcome sexual attention.
    • Repeated harassment of others. In general, if someone asks you to stop, then stop." --Djembayz (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Other than noting that there may be occasions when some of those things (e.g. discriminatory or violent language) may need to be discussed and quoted in the context of an article (they should never be used towards another user of course), and that what is perceived as inappropriate language may in some cases differ between people from different cultural backgrounds (again, if someone tells you that X is offensive to them, don't repeat it regardless of your intent, but equally realise that something you find offensive may not have been intended that way), you have my agreement. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin's section

I want to thank Djembayz for her posts (diffs: [24][25][26][27]). I don't expect them to comment, but I'm pinging LilaTretikov (WMF), Siko (WMF) and AWang (WMF) so they can read them. I'm also pinging some GGTF members who have commented on similar issues: BoboMeowCat, EvergreenFir, Gobonobo, Smallbones, The Vintage Feminist, Rosiestep, Tony1. As Djembayz wrote, DefendEachOther matters. One of the problems is that, if there has been less-than-ideal behaviour from the person before the commmittee, we don't want to look as though we're defending it, which means we don't speak up and the point gets missed. In addition, it's very time-consuming and it's never clear that spending the time will lead to anything good.

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

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

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

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

I know this relates only to a small portion of your comment, but it is an important point that needs reiterating. Lightbreather has been receiving abusive emails and having fake images of herself posted on porn sites. We (arbitrators and functionaries) have been and are conducting extensive and detailed investigations into these issues - and these investigations are one of the principle reasons for the length of time this case has taken. We have indefinitely blocked multiple accounts as a result of these investigations, but it has to date not been possible for us to identify the person (or persons) responsible for the images on porn sites with the standard of proof required to take action. We have been sharing the information we have as a result of our investigations with the WMF, but as of the most recent time they advised us of the progress of their independent investigation they to had not been able to identify anybody to the standard of proof they required to take action. It must also be borne in mind that the ultimate sanction that we can hand out is an indefinite ban from the English Wikipedia. We have no powers over what any person does on any place on the internet or what emails anybody sends (other than those sent using the email user facility on the English Wikipedia). We (the arbitration committee) are unable to take any legal actions regarding any harassment received or perpetrated by Wikipedians, for example we do not have the power to require any site to take down any content they host - we can ask but if the site involved says "no" there is nothing more we can do. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, Thryduulf. As soon as sexist or racist harassment is spotted – months before we reach the porn images and nasty emails stage – it should be dealt with decisively (broken-window syndrome). A white racist following a black editor to a project addressing systemic bias would be topic-banned/blocked/banned immediately. But sexist editors following women to GGTF are barely noticed. The women have to point it out and keep pointing it out, and soon become the villains of the piece, because they're not assuming good faith. This gives anyone wanting to harass them the green light.
As for the off-wiki harassment, one editor acknowledged sending some of the emails. He is now banned, but he had been baiting women openly on Wikipedia. He almost wasn't sanctioned at all during the GGTF case. It was only toward the end of the case that a proposal was posted that he be topic-banned, but only topic-banned, while two women were banned outright.
Regarding the images, I appreciate that it must be difficult, but perhaps the website(s) on which the images were posted can help. Also, can you say something about what standard of proof you're requiring, i.e. is it higher than "more likely than not"? Sarah (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, Thryduulf's comment was about the WMF's investigation; we cannot provide further clarity there, but perhaps Philippe (WMF) or Mdennis (WMF) can. Regarding assistance from the sites on which the content was posted: they declined to provide any information in absence of a court order. LFaraone 04:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a minor extension to LFarone's point, any such court order would need to be brought be LB herself. Whether the WMF would be able to help her, if she chose(s) to proceed along that route, is something I understand the WMF's legal team were looking in to (as there are many individual factors in cases like this, such as the legal jurisdiction of the website(s) and of the victim(s)). What, if any, legal help that can be offered, is a private matter between WMF and the editor(s) concerned that arbcom is not and should not be a party to. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As to the specifics of a particular investigation, like LFaraone says, we cannot provide specific details. So far as general principles, ArbCom is not a court. We don't have specific standards of evidence. However, given the ease with which a joe job could be done with offsite harassment, I really don't think "more likely than not", i.e., 50.0000001%, would be the correct one. I could easily make it look like anyone who I don't like or have a dispute with was "more likely than not" responsible for some type of harassment, including using various services by which the IP it was done from would be untraceable or even where the location (if known) is located near to the victim. I wouldn't do that, as it would be unethical, but some people would, and would under that standard easily get opponents site banned by doing so. The standard with offsite harassment is generally that we must be conclusively sure that the offsite harasser can be linked to the Wikipedia account sanctioned for it. In some cases, it won't be possible to make such a link. I wish it were always possible but it is not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, LFaraone, Thryduulf and Seraphimblade. In cases I'm aware of, websites disclosed IP addresses when the women themselves asked. Lightbreather, did you do that, and assuming they said no, would you consider applying for a court order? Thryduulf, is it correct that the Foundation couldn't apply for one? It would send a signal that it intends to enforce its terms of use (prohibited activities include "[e]ngaging in harassment, threats, stalking ...") [28] Other sites were used for the harassment but LB was targeted because she edits Wikipedia. Sarah (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
is it correct that the Foundation couldn't apply for [a court order]?. I don't know, you need to ask this question of the Foundation legal team (pinging Philippe) not us. It is definitely not something that ArbCom can do, and we have no role in saying what the Foundation can or should do. I know you are asking in good faith, but this is not the venue to talk about issues in general. W (ArbCom) are not privy to the discussions the legal team are having between themselves, nor any discussions they are having with Lightbreather (and even if we were we almost certainly couldn't share that knowledge publicly), so there is very little about this specific case we can say. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

My comments regarding court orders reflect my understanding, which may or may not be correct.
Regarding the "perfect victim" we do not expect anyone to be any such thing, but we do make it clear that everybody is responsible for their own actions regardless of the reasons for those actions. You have made your other points here already, repeating them does not help anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGK, in response to your post to Lightbreather, the case was set up so that those who had been hounding LB were excluded as parties. That was the first inherent unfairness, and it means the committee has not seen the evidence of quite how extensive that hounding became. A larger point is that, had that evidence been presented, the case would have become extremely toxic, with editors spending days or weeks digging up old disputes and insults.
What was desperately needed instead were early 2-way interaction bans between LB and the people who were baiting her. If that lesson isn't learned, this kind of thing will keep happening. The issue now is whether editors, especially admins and the ArbCom, are willing to discuss where dispute resolution goes wrong and how to fix it – especially for women, who are more likely to be the target of certain kinds of baiting and who may react differently to it. As things stand, and the proposed decision seems to support this, women who are being baited are expected to keep quiet or stop editing. LB's main flaw was that she refused at each and every point to shut up about it. (Also pinging Roger Davies, Doug Weller, Euryalus, Courcelles, Gorilla Warfare.) Sarah (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of that except the last two sentences.
First, I opposed the reference to people being advised to keep quiet and lower their profile of harassed, for precisely the reason you outline - it tells people to let the harassers win. What we should be telling people is to make a fuss about harassment through the right channels, and for those channels to work well enough that the harassment gets dealt with. Again, as I've said here and elsewhere: one person was found to be a source of harassment, and they were swiftly site-banned. A second person was alleged to be involved but after exhaustive examination there was no consensus on the strength of the evidence against them. The fact that this second person was not site banned was not (not) because no one cared, but because many people found the evidence insufficient. Lightbreather disagreed with that outcome, as she is entitled to do. She then encouraged others to harass that person, which she is not entitled to do. But none of this is the foundation of this case, or a principal point made in /Evidence.
Second, there is no problem about Lightbreather refusing to "shut up about it" during the case. There is a problem where a claim is investigated in good faith, found to be unsubstantiated, and nonetheless pursued relentlessly and forever without any regard for that outcome. I'm not talking about the harassment here; I'm talking about (for example) the forum-shopping in gun control, the assumptions of bad faith against whole swathes of passersby, or the repetition of sock allegations against Gaijin/Godsy despite the total lack of evidence. These aren't to do with the entirely offensive off-wiki harassment, they're to do with on-wiki disruptive conduct. I don't doubt Lightbreather's sincerity in advancing these allegations, but if you make a claim and it's found to be wrong, you shouldn't just block your ears and make the claim again and again regardless. I agree with an earlier post by DGG that victims of genuine harassment deserve wide latitude if they respond in what might seem to be an intemperate way, but this is not a free pass for any kind of conduct. Nor is it retrospectively applied to editor conduct that occurred prior to the harassment itself.
Its also worth acknowledging that there is plenty of low-level on-wiki harassment too. That's where the community/admins/arbcom can or should have acted earlier and more consistently. That this didn't happen is one of the reasons why this arbcom case existed. Again this is not a reference to the off-wiki harassment - it's a general comment regarding the editing environment and the incorrect assumption that medium-level personal abuse is just part of daily life. It's something that can be addressed by the community, if the community as a whole really wants it to be. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't expect anyone who is being baited to keep quiet or stop editing. I do expect them not to take actions that might result in vigilante justice. I know there were threats made to one editor's family and friends as a result of LightBreather's going to WO, and given that it may be the case that the editor's address was revealed, actual physical violence isn't impossible and could still occur given that LightBreather is today again making the same allegations at WO (or so I'm told, I'm not a member there and can't see the thread). We sometimes talk about "real life" as though what we do here or on forums such as WO has no impact on real life, but that's obviously not the case. I also think that if none of the harassment that she experienced during the case had taken place the results of the case would have been pretty much the same and it would have been over last month. Like my colleagues, I hope that one result of this case will be strengthening of our policies against harassment coupled with enforcement of those policies. Doug Weller (talk) 09:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Euryalus and Doug, thank you for the replies. I agree that the community should deal with harassment, including gendered harassment (which it often seems unable to see). But the committee exists for issues the community can't deal with, yet it too turned down LB's request for an interaction ban with one of the men.
In two decisions within seven months (GGTF and this), the committee has banned women who were being harassed but has not banned the men behind it, except for one who admitted he had sent unpleasant emails. All the others – and there were more than just the two who took it off-wiki – got off scott-free. They weren't even parties to the case this time, which meant there was no hope of reaching a fair decision. This list of stories about sexism on WP is likely to get longer. What can we do to change the way the committee handles these cases? Sarah (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If any editor, of any gender, is a positive contributor to the project and doesn't edit war, forum shop, out, harass, etc, then they will not get banned. Any editor, of any gender, that does those things will get banned - it takes far too long for that to happen, and the community needs to step up to handle that as much as we do (lightbreather's editing behaviour should have been nipped in the bud long ago for example, long before any of the recent harassment happened). If there are editors whose presence on the project is harming the encyclopaedia (directly or indirectly, e.g. by driving away others) then you need to present a case against them to community venues. If the community fails to resolve the issues then you need to bring a case to us - we have neither the resources nor the mandate to be proactive. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: The difficulty with that is twofold. First, it means that women being hounded are expected to bring a case that will attract even more attention from the people engaged in it, when expert advice is not to engage. Look what happened with LB's efforts to get help; they were used as evidence against her. Second, a lot of editors feel that taking a case to ArbCom isn't worth it, and that you will be kind to men and harsh on women.
Put those views together and the chance of a woman bringing a case now for hounding is minuscule. The committee knows who the men are, because the same names have cropped up repeatedly for a year. You could have sanctioned them during GGTF, put two-way IBANs in place, or added them as parties here, but chose not to. Sarah (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

((re|SlimVirgin}} Would you be willing to mentor/monitor LB if the site ban were suspended, say for three months to see if thwre's any improvement? If so, even at this late stage, we might be able to work something out. @Lightbreather: It would also need LB to agree unconditionally to comply with her restrictions.  Roger Davies talk 23:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: template above was malformed, so the ping probably failed. I've taken liberty of re-pinging as I think this is very important; feel free to delete this when seen. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, I have to go offline soon and won't be on again until tomorrow, but in principle, yes, I would be willing to do that. Sarah (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir's section

Not the place for wide-reaching proposals,  Roger Davies talk 08:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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

The case is still open because it has not been completed. We are actively working on the proposed decision, which baring more interruptions (on or off wiki) should progress quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 00:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Yes, but we don't have entire ANI and AE (or even arb cases) debating whether or not "n*****" is racist, unlike the word "c**t" re: sexism. 04:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on proposed decision by EF

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

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

We can't set policy; we've requested community participation in defining such a policy at 3.3.7 and 3.3.8. LFaraone 00:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@LFaraone: Yeah, I finally got to that part. It seems rather insufficient to be honest. I worry that practical advice and guidance from the community will be things like don't provoke people and don't be so sensitive and other "advice" we often hear given to women regarding sexual harassment. Perhaps the committee can make a section 3.3.9 with something to this effect:
Administrators urged - Admins are urged to take allegations of serious harassment and sexual harassment extremely seriously and, if substantiated, to use tools they deem appropriate to swiftly and strongly deal with the harasser.
I'm not much good at wording, but I'd love to see something to doesn't put the burden on the victim or the community (which has shown itself rather incapable of dealing with harassment like this and doesn't have the tools to deal with the harasser).
One thought too: the gendered nature of this harassment has been effectively removed from the proposed decision. This was sexual harassment. Wikipedia has a gender problem and ignoring the gendered nature of the harassment furthers that problem by allowing it to remain unaddressed. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Euryalus: I do hope something to this effect will be considered in the PD. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not much immediate support. Will see if this changes. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus: Thanks for replying. The logic behind this is, imho, if we're going to recommend the community respond, we should recommend admins do too. Is there anything in particular folks have reservations about? If it's the "sexual harassment" part, just remove it. Though I still maintain my earlier position that this is about identity-based harassment and that it's a shame that's been erased quite a bit from this case, I'd rather see some statement to admins than none at all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The harassment in this case was sexual harassment. Calling that out doesn't imply that there aren't any other kinds of harassment, or that other kinds of harassment are less important. Its just what this case is about and what this case's remedies need to address. But the opposition is really as outlined in this thread, along the lines of providing advice to people who shouldn't need that advice, and highlighting one form of harassment over another. See also my comments in Protonk's section below, regarding my entirely personal view of how we collectively view the relative importance of low-level sniping in this area. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus: Thank you again for your comments. I won't push it further. Y'all do what you need to do. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@Roger Davies: If that's the case, it should be added to the finding of facts (I've not checked the diffs yet to see if things have changed since I last looked). Still, the focus is LB. This is her case. While occurrences during the case should be addressed too, the root of the case is sexual harassment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: According to SlimVirgin's evidence, LB's perceptions of Wikipedia were badly affected by specific interactions during the period from 2013 to October 2014. These were not about sexual harassment. I see how this could have left LB suspicious and distrustful.  Roger Davies talk 05:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: My assertions are based more in the fact that there's notable overlap between LB's ibans, folks in the GGTF case, and folks with significant overlap and interaction with them those from the case. I'm oversimplifying things if I say it's all about sexual harassment, but there seems to be a clear context in which these interactions are occurring. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir: That's about right, I think. I was picking up on your remark about root causes.  Roger Davies talk 05:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What?? I think most people understand that this case is covering Lightbreather's historical conduct and more recent events, but your comment makes it sound like you feel that her behavior regarding the harassment is somehow based on earlier interactions. I would rather leave it to Lightbreather to decide specifically the motives behind her responses, but whether you intended it or not, your above comment makes it sound like you think her responses to the sexual harassment are based solely on her earlier interactions on Wikipedia. I certainly hope you're not trying to say that her reaction to harassment is simply her trying to further earlier issues; that would be extremely callous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm simply noting that SV's take is that many of LB's reactions reflect an early loss of trust and I'm sympathetic to that argument. What's callous about that?  Roger Davies talk 05:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With the reveal of Two kinds of Pork as the banned user... that makes another GGTF party related to this case. I know I've exhausted my time here, but I really do wish something more could be said/done to acknowledge the milieu in which these events transpired. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Roger Davies: If you think there needs to be something more official and permanent to handle this sort of thing (as mentioned in this edit), then perhaps that recommendation should be in the PD? Can arbcom make a recommendation to WMF just has they have to the community? (Note, this sorta harkens back to my comments you hatted above: something more, something with teeth is needed to deal with this). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, I do. I don't think there's much point in adding something to the PD though as the WMF are more than aware of the concerns and actively working to address some of them. They'll be presenting something about trust and safety in the next day or two in Mexico. There is already a remedy asking the community to support them in their initiative.  Roger Davies talk 01:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward said would you really not give [a DV victim] advice to seek out a safe shelter where they could lie low anonymously? No. You give them options and resources and let them choose what's best for their situation. The moment you leave an abuser, the risk for severe violence increase drastically. Can't compare domestic violence to online sexual harassment easily. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz and L235: - 3.3.6 and 3.3.6.1 both incorrectly link to Scalhotrod. Please change [[User:Scalhatrod|Scalhotrod]] to [[User:Scalhotrod|Scalhotrod]] (a → o in hot before the pipe). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pudeo: You fail to recognize (or acknowledge) the context this is taking place in. Again, of LB's 5 ibans, 2 are with people (I assume men) party to the GGTF (one who has a history of abusive sexist language) and 2 who interact regularly with and support the aforementioned two and regularly wade into gender issues. For the record, though we may disagree on some issues, I generally have respect for Sitush's efforts to be cordial and helpful. Finally, a third party to the GGTF case was site banned for harassing LB. You cannot divorce LB's actions from this context. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

I removed the edit because the editor was quite clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute based on the previous edit. I see that Reaper Eternal has since denied an unblock filed on their behalf, and commented that "checkuser indicates that this IP has been used for abusive account creation". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So clearly NOTHERE that no-one bothered about it for five days until Kevin raised the issue with you privately? Despite LB raising it above and an arb replying? Oh well, I guess I'll never understand this system but stand by my opinion that the comment itself was not trollish, regardless of what might have happened elsewhere. You win, of course. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was mentioned here, I'll reply. I'm completely unaffiliated with this case and have no real interest in being involved. The IP which posted that message also posted a disruptive comment with a disruptive edit summary on SlimVirgin's talk page. He or she also created an account with a trolling, abusive username (and was promptly blocked), as can be seen via checkuser. I cannot give the username per the privacy policy, but suffice it to say that the IP was not here to contribute constructively. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok, thanks. I wasn't aware of the block that GW referred to. Like I said, it doesn't alter the nature of the comment made here, which didn't seem to me to be a trollish comment, but I suppose DENY applies in these circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't for the context of their other actions then it probably wouldn't have been removed. Context does matter however. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Several brouhahas, including the one you mention, are taking up a lot of time. Otherwise it would have been finished. ASAP is all I can say - we really do want to get this out as soon as we can. Giving another date seems pointless. Doug Weller (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks. At least I have the option of walking away from the current infighting etc without having to concern myself about letting down my !voters by devoiding my "duty" or indeed ignoring the wider community. So that's what I'm doing. This place has gone nuts recently and it puts ArbCom in a particularly difficult position. My thanks for all you do, even when I disagree with it. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: re: this. The nearest this case has come to accusations of paedophilia is a diff presented by Lightbreather regarding myself ... but that was merely a comment by me to the effect that I had been accused of uploading child pornography, and she wasn't using the diff for that purpose. In turn, that allegation (uploading of child porn) might be a mild sort of example of harassment of the type alluded to by Roger in his reply to Mark Bernstein's "explicitly privileges white cis male editors" comment. Not that the particular example really bothered me because it was entirely baseless and I've had much worse related things to contend with that have involved the police and WMF, as the PD is is suggesting on this occasion.

I think the Committee's hand are rather tied on this one but I doubt you will persuade Mark or Protonk: there is a wide gulf between the principled position and the practical. Somewhere down the road, in the months to come, Mark in particular is either going to have to appreciate this dichotomy or simply give up. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

We normally allow some latitude to discuss underlying issues but I agree that this has moved into a tangential general discussion, much of relating to mattrs which are neither within the committee's control, nor its remit, nor the scope of the case. I'll be hatting some of it shortly.  Roger Davies talk 08:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In this area/these participants, latitude soon snowballs. DeCausa (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller

@Doug Weller: your post here seems inconsistent with your oppose vote on the site ban. Will you be switching your vote? DeCausa (talk) 07:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. She knows she is going to be site banned so probably doesn't care if she gets blocked now or later. This can be seen as a reaction to the fact (as it's been passed) to the site ban. Of course if we'd decided not to site ban, and she continued to violate the remedies, I'd immediately support a site ban. Maybe I'm wrong in my hopes that the remedies would have worked, but we aren't going to find out. For me the choice hung on a narrow margin, and I accept that I could easily be wrong. Doug Weller (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Thryduulf, where is the appropriate forum to comment that I believe the history of hounding and harassment that Lightbreather has experienced should to be considered with respect to proposed decision on this arbcom case if not here? Also, why are my comments regarding how to potentially prevent this sort of thing in the future off-topic?--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How to prevent "this sort of thing" in future are not relevant here because this page is explicitly only for discussing the decision regarding the Lightbreather case, not what might, could, should or should not happen in the future. You did not make any comments regarding what you now say you believe above, these points have already been made by several other people already and the drafters have already made it clear that this is being considered. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J8079s proposals

The workshop phase is over. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Lightbreather:

  1. Topic banned from guns and gun related articles broadly construed.
  2. interaction ban with all other editors (0 reverts)
  3. No more chat and or blogs on the talk pages all comments need to be addressed to wikipedia, others subject to removal
  4. There is plenty of work to be done that does not require a gang of "frenimies"

J8079s (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HiaB

User:GorillaWarfare is this [29] an admin action or arb action? I'm curious if you bothered to read [30]. It could easily be that this was consensus and you were arbcoms hammer man.. I have no opinion whatsoever about the person behind the post but I do think this is the appropriate forum to ask again if your judgement is compromised in this area? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was an action I made as an individual, not an action of the committee. The user had previously made a harassing edit that shows that they are WP:NOTHERE, and I note that an unblock filed on their behalf has been denied by Reaper Eternal, with the comment that "checkuser indicates that this IP has been used for abusive account creation". GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not on topic for this case. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Euryalus: Why is there only subtext?! You do realize that 99% of people reading this case (including the outside media) will be completely unaware of this subtext, and will instead see ArbCom punishing an editor for trying to defend herself against sexual harassment? If I had been drafting the case, I would have included six different findings of fact, "XXX has sexually harassed Lightbreather," and six remedies banning them from the encyclopedia. Only after loudly trumpeting the bans of people engaging in on- and off-wiki sexual harassment, would I quietly add the remedies regarding Lightbreather. This would have decreased drama and gone some way towards remedying the perception of ArbCom (and Wikipedia) as out-of-touch sexists, whereas the case as drafted did exactly the opposite. TotientDragooned (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Chess: Primarily because there has been an astonishing amount of to-ing and fro-ing over process plus an unprecedented number of requests by email covering a wide range of subjects and spanning many weeks. The events of 25-29 June have also directly impacted on the timetable and (in my case) a big real life job has also since then derailed, eating into available time. For what it's worth, we are seeking to address wider issues than just the narrow focus of the case as will be apparent when it is posted.  Roger Davies talk 07:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: "Wider issues" sounds like fun. Also, what are these "major events"? And this'll be some interesting policy making by ArbCom. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Chess and Carrite: Relying to both these points, there has been a very significant amount of back channel to-ing and fro-ing by email, involving both the parties and their supporters/detractors. With arbitrator/functionary commentary, this probably involves over a thousand emails. These only concluded just over a week ago, so the time since original due date isn't really relevant here. The "wider issues" are aimed at addressing some underlying and recurrent problems and do not, as far as I can see, involve any policy-making by ArbCom. One of the areas we looked at was whether the WMF Non discrimination policy ("NDP") (which basically controls the way WMF staff and contractors conduct themselves) could perhaps be repurposed and adapted on the English Wikipedia, and whether it is beneficial to do so. This probably won't make it into the final PD.  Roger Davies talk 05:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: Is there a reason why you won't explain what's happening publicly, plus give us more regular and specific updates? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chess, pings don't work unless you make the ping in the same edit as you add a signature. (Pinging Roger Davies to fix...) L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chess We don't normally discuss deliberations or private submissions publicly, with good reason. It tends to open the door to unhelpful speculation and fresh rounds of allegation and acrimony. And, as I suggested above, I've been hammered with new real life jobs, with tight deadlines, so my spare time has been at a premium. On top of this, we've had a recent succession of unusual and time-consuming events to deal with, which has also eroded my/committee focusing time. Worryingly, firefighting difficult sensitive stuff that we are ill-equipped to handle is becoming the norm for ArbCom. The only solution is to cut back significantly on what we look after, seeing for example what could be passed on elsewhere. One split might be for ArbCom to deal only with on-wiki stuff and all off-wiki stuff to go to the WMF. We need to do something though as it is becoming more difficult to reach consensus (both internally and within the community) about how to deal with stuff with real life implications.  Roger Davies talk 06:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: Maybe you should consider giving the drafting arb position to someone else? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 06:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chess We already have several people working this.  Roger Davies talk 06:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: Any ETA on the proposed decision? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Chess Hopefully by Sunday (unless yet another crisis engulfs us).  Roger Davies talk 07:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Roger Davies: It took that long to prepare a decision without Wider policy implications? Also, how does the WMF non discrimination even relate to this? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 11:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Why is this case getting so much attention, again? I thought this was about Lightbreather's allegedly bad behavior editing articles? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 12:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than waste more of our time, please read the explanations previously given in several places. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Lightbreather: If you want to do a clean start you can just ask the committee for permission. It says right there in the remedy. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather: That appears to not be a part of any principle/remedy at all. That's just User:Euryalus writing an opinion that a clean start is not an opinion for you. It doesn't seem to be an official position of the committee. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: Exactly, which is why Lightbreather should be banned because she tried to out somebody, right? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

@LFaraone:, if ArbComm decides, as it is poised to, that female editors should not "fight back" against sexual harassment, it will be setting bad policy. If it decides to punish a female editor for trying to identify a perpetrator of vicious sexual harassment, as it is poised to, it will be setting policy that is not merely bad but abominably stupid. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Euryalus:, your opinion that "Someone who calls other editors racist names will be blocked immediately" has not really been borne out in practice. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive788#Repeated_use_of_derogatory_racial_epithets_in_edit_summaries_by_User:Calton, where although the offender was quickly blocked, he was unblocked after a few hours, reblocked after discussion --but finally unblocked after further discussion, even though the offender had never made an appropriate unblock request and even though the majority of commenters on the unblock proposal at ANI had opposed the unblock. It's an unfortunate fact here that admins determined to excuse misbehavior by established users tend to prevail, despite policy and consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf:, you state that an editor who was site-banned for severely harassing Lightbreather has not been identified on-wiki. Why not? Lightbreather is being named and shamed for less consequential misbehavior. I'm certainly left uncomfortable by a process where secret discussions result in secret punishments. I;m even more disturbed that, unless the editor sanctioned at a higher level than Arbcom, they remain free to contact users on other wikis (eg, commons), who are purposefully being kept in the dark about egregious misconduct. Being publicly sanctioned for misbehavior carries a certain degree of humiliation. If Lightbreather is to be publicly shamed for less serious misconduct, why is ArbComm acting protectively towards an editor whose misconduct was much worse? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have kept the WMF informed throughout of our actions, so they can choose to globally ban the relevant user if they feel it necessary. We have no authority over other wikis. As for the reason we are not naming them on-wiki, I believe WP:DENY is the simplest summation and we also do not want to encourage others to out them in retaliation. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's utterly ridiculous, @Thryduulf: WP:DENY deals with essentially petty behavior that the offender uses for perverse self-glorification. It's certainly not policy of any sort, and cannot in any way justify Arbcomm's commitment to secrecy. The editor in question engaged in vicious, gender-based personal harassment. His behavior was far worse than anything Lightbreather did. Yet they're allowed to disappear without any explanation. If you're not concerned by the disparity between the humiliation of Lightbreather and the anonymity afforded this offender, you should recognize that you're casting a shadow on every user who stops or takes a break from editing over the last few weeks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding the issue of a certain user who I am not allowed to name allegedly engaging in sexual harassment: In all discussions I have seen in offsite forums, there is unanimous agreement regarding whose behind it. While one or two have questioned if its harassment, not a single person seems to doubt who the perpetrator is. That arbcom is not confident in reaching the same conclusion is deeply disheartening. Unless you've all received some secret kernel of evidence that turns all these allegations on their head, then you're definitely being far too cautious. I can only hope that in the future efforts are made to reform Arbcom and make it more capable of handling offsite harassment, or that otherwise such issues have been forwarded to the WMF to deal with. Arbcom needs to overcome its fears of WP:OUTING, or else the advantage will always be in the hand of harassers in wiki disputes. Bosstopher (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The matter was also investigated by the functionaries team and the Wikimedia Foundation. See discussion higher up on this page. LFaraone 22:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't speak for how the Arbs reached their conclusions (and I obviously can't provide details of mailing list discussions here), I will say that my experience of the functionaries discussion on this topic was that nobody could agree where the line for "enough evidence" even lay, let alone on whether the presented evidence crossed it or not. It was very much a "no consensus" discussion rather than a "consensus to/not to X" discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Last I looked, people had the legal right to talk about it if someone abused them. Andreas JN466 01:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You're not just talking about on-wiki discussions, though, Seraphimblade, are you? Andreas JN466 01:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I would like to join Protonk in registering my agreement with this comment by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz:

That's utterly ridiculous, @Thryduulf: WP:DENY deals with essentially petty behavior that the offender uses for perverse self-glorification. It's certainly not policy of any sort, and cannot in any way justify Arbcomm's commitment to secrecy. The editor in question engaged in vicious, gender-based personal harassment. His behavior was far worse than anything Lightbreather did. Yet they're allowed to disappear without any explanation. If you're not concerned by the disparity between the humiliation of Lightbreather and the anonymity afforded this offender, you should recognize that you're casting a shadow on every user who stops or takes a break from editing over the last few weeks. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The disparity referred to is indeed odious. If any further evidence of Wikipedia's unconscious, systemic bias against women had been needed, you have just furnished it. Is it simply that men stick together, that they find it easier to empathise with another man than a woman? Whatever the reason—shame on you. You're being shown up as morally deficient. Andreas JN466 23:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently under discussion re publishing the username. But it doesn't "cast a shadow" over every user who took a break, it only cases a shadow over any user who took a break and came back to find themselves blocked by arbcom. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio, you say,

Arbcom chose to sanction LB for trying to find the username of someone sexually harassing her. That's slightly inaccurate. Lightbreather already thought she knew who the perpetrator was. She said as much on Wikipediocracy: I have figured out who this man is and tied him to his Wikipedia username. You guys love this gossipy, cloak-and-dagger stuff. Any guesses? Now, I'm not supporting the FoF, because I deem it superfluous, but the point is that the functionaries investigated the allegations and at least one arbitrator followed up on their investigation with his own. We took her allegations seriously, we pointed her to a series of resources dealing with harassment, put her in contact with the Foundation and they too tried to help her. Finally, we asked her to please try and get the IPs used by her harasser, to use them to link him to his Wikipedia account, if any. She, instead, went to Wikipediocracy and it was not to get help in finding out the identity of her harasser, because, as I said, she already thought she knew it. Now, I have my opinion as to why she did it, but as far as I'm concerned, her reasons are neither here nor there, because, for me, her conduct on wiki is enough to warrant a site ban and actually has made it inevitable.

Your quote of Lightbreather's first WO post regarding this is accurate. But you will concede, perhaps, that Lightbreather obviously still has not identified the owner of the online accounts that harassed her to your satisfaction (she has to mine ...), a fact evident from your and the Wikimedia Foundation's collective refusal to name or sanction him.

Your post also sounds like no one – not you, not the Wikimedia Foundation – offered to help Lightbreather obtain the IP addresses in question (a costly, time-consuming and difficult task, as I'm sure you know) to arrive at the required level of evidentiary certainty: she, the person harassed, was supposed to do that legwork for you – while you were drafting reasons to ban her. Can you really blame her for turning elsewhere?

All of this would be astonishing if it weren't so much part of a pattern of indifference. For example, a banned editor and long-term vandal (mentioned twice on this page, although unrelated to this case) has for five years now been sending rape threats to women editors in one particular topic area, along with threats to murder their husbands, families, etc. (He sends threats to male editors as well.) Yet the Foundation, an organisation with a projected revenue of over $75 million this year, which knows the editor's real name and place of residence, has done nothing to stop this. I guess that is what Roger Davies is getting at. Andreas JN466 15:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your post also sounds like no one – not you, not the Wikimedia Foundation – offered to help Lightbreather obtain the IP addresses in question I admit I don't know what the Foundation did, but, as far as ArbCom is concerned, there was nothing we could do. We have no standing to ask anyone for IPs.
Yet the Foundation, [...] which knows the editor's real name and place of residence, has done nothing to stop this. Here, you're preaching to the choir.
I am honestly interested in proposals, such as the one presented by EvergreenFir below, aimed at reducing harassment on Wikipedia, but the ones focusing only on us and the community have to be realistic: there isn't that much we can do to stop harassment. We need to get the Foundation to be more active, but I don't really know how. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Neither we (arbcom) nor the functionaries have neither the right nor ability to get IP addresses from third party websites, even if we had the resources to - it isn't that we didn't want to help her we simply were not able. We put Lightbreather in touch with the Foundation so they could give her what help they can. The Foundation cannot compel the website to release their IP data without a court order (if they have it - not every website keeps that information, the website in question's privacy policy says they do but makes no mention of how long they keep it for), my understanding is that the Foundation's legal and community team were looking in to what they could either directly or what assistance they could provide to Lightbreather to do it herself. I do not know what the outcome of that was in this case (arbcom was not, and should not, be party to that discussion), but in general terms there are some jurisdictions that require the court order to be applied for by victim - if you want to change that you need to lobby the government of the relevant jurisdiction. The website that the pictures were posted to in this case is based in Canada (or at least their DMCA agent is, which is the only physical address I found) which would mean it would not necessarily be bound by an order of a US court which is where the Foundation would most likely be able to make one - I don't know what jurisdiction Lightbreather resides in, but if it is not Canada then the same lack of binding judgement would probably apply (I have no idea how a non-Canadian resident would get a Canadian court order, or even if they can).
The bottom line is that in almost all jurisdictions, harassment law dates from a pre-Internet era and is not fit for purpose for harassment that happens electronically. We are pushing hard for the Foundation to do all that they can, but even if they spent all their budget on harassment issues there are some things that they will not be able to change. If you want to resolve this, find out the law in your country and write to your MP/Senator/whoever about it if it isn't up to snuff. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see Opabinia regalis express the following:

It's also consistently trying to decenter the point that this case is a group of mostly men passing judgment about the behavior of a woman who was harassed by men, as a result of her participation in an online community of mostly men, with roots in the technology / free culture / FLOSS communities which are again, mostly men. There's been a lot of emphasis on various problems with Lightbreather's conduct and very little analysis of what it means that the behavioral norms she's being held to and the dispute resolution mechanisms available to her evolved in a community of mostly men.

People here have said that Lightbreather is not perfect. Do you know how many male contributors Wikipedia has that are "not perfect"? There are innumerable male contributors here whom I would consider far less capable of making significant contributions to an encyclopedia project, in terms of their personality, maturity and education level, than LB. But you know what? When one of them gets in hot water, there are a lot of like-minded men there to speak up for them. No one likes to see anyone banned with whom they can empathise and identify. With LB, the situation is reversed: not only does she have fewer empathising peers, numerically, she also has more attackers picking on her, egging each other on. If Wikipedia as a crowdsourcing project ever wants to address the gender gap, it has to be aware of and compensate for its gender demographics and the skewed behavioural dynamics of its crowd. ArbCom has a significant role to play here. The fact that Lightbreather has mounted a vigorous and articulate challenge to the status quo is a large and underappreciated part of the reason why we are here. Andreas JN466 09:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Lightbreather has mounted a vigorous and articulate challenge to the status quo is a large and underappreciated part of the reason why we are here. No it isn't. The reason why we are here is that Lightbreather has a history of edit warring, forum shopping, battleground behaviour, WP:OWNership and not dropping the stick. There are may women on this site who are challenging the status quo without engaging in any of that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ, Thryduulf. Things like her initiative to create a women-only discussion space somewhere in the Wikimedia world have drawn particular animus and made her a target. If you don't see that, you are blind. Battleground and ownership indeed! ;) Some of those sticks you mention shouldn't be dropped, for the reasons just outlined. Andreas JN466 15:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Other comments

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)[reply]

And It Begins

This morning, an IP editor arrives on my page [31] 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Can I ask why you've even bothered to respond Roger? If it wasn't for your name being roger I'd likely not know your gender. I /think/ based on naming conventions you're likely a male. Other than that you could be a dark skinned midget from the moon with one arm and dear and I wouldn't know. I literally have no idea what you look like and it's impossible for me to harass you for being a midget from the moon unless you tell me. This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit and no one knows your gender/race/abilities/etc unless you actually went out of your way to tell them. Why? In what context does you being a quadruple amputee matter, only the content of your edits matter. If you need to go 'My edits are better because I'm oppressed', your edits are likely complete garbage. FlossumPossum (talk) 07:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

Protonk Is Right

This case, following both GG and the GGTF cases, indicate to me that the committee is completely incapable and unwilling to deal with the problem of online harassment and is now serving as a serious impediment to women working on wikipedia. I hope that in time we will be able to look on the tone-deaf nature of this decision with shame.

The worst outrage of the ill-advised harassment passages have been withdrawn. Thank you; it costs something to acknowledge a mistake. Some damage was done to the project by even proposing such a decision.

There remains the question of process. This is not new territory for you after GGTF and GG. The absurd blunders of the Gamergate decision and their consequences must have been fresh in your minds. How did this happen, and how can it be prevented in the future?

Further, the current decision clearly considers revealing the identity of a Wikipedia editor as a graver misdeed than harassment, on-wiki or off. Is that actually your intent? The world would very much like to see some sincere and genuine concern for editors who are hounded and harassed. I also note that, once again, the decision has not even a token acknowledgment of concern for non-editors who are sexually harassed through the pages of our encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the GGTF and GG cases shows what happens when women talk out of turn. -- Protonk

And, of course, the original proposed decision required that, when women talked out of turn and were harassed for doing so, it became their responsibility to lower their profile. We still have the apparent lesson that, if you are harassed off-wiki by people seeking to extort an advantage on-Wiki, that harassment is extremely unlikely to be punished but trying to learn the identity of the harasser -- a necessary precondition to any criminal or civil action and apparently also a necessary precondition for Wikipedia lifting a finger to assist you -- will result in your immediate expulsion. Again: if ArbCom does not want to send a message that harassed editors should not have been talking out of turn, what is the message you are sending? In particular, why take the case in preference to simply banning Lightbreather under WP:BATTLEGROUND or something of that ilk?

The world is watching, but it sure is confused. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherence

I observe that at this last minute, much of the Committee is arguing on the talk page that ArbCom should cease to have any role in off-site harassment, while simultaneously passing a finding that requires people who are harassed to report the harassment to Arbcom and/or WMF. It is not clear, further, whether this duty to report harassment is limited to the victim, or whether it is incumbent on everyone.

If the intended target is ambiguous, ought possible targets to report, or not? What will be done with these reports? Are these reports confidential? Can the reports be submitted anonymously? If the report is mistaken, is the reporter subject to a boomerang? Is a disagreement over whether or not a particular incident is harassment subject to boomerangs?

If the harasser demands to see copies of the reports, will Arbcom comply? If these reports are later subpoenaed, will Arbcom comply? If allegations that X has been reported as a harasser are made, may X demand to confirm or deny the existence of the report? Under what circumstances may X face his accuser? If Arbcom knows the victim’s identity, can X demand to know it, too? If so, the victim is placed at risk of further retribution. If not, X can be libeled with impunity.

If a victim files a report on which no action is taken, will Arbcom inform them of the reason no action was taken? We can readily imagine scenarios where User:A believes X is harassing them, but in fact Arbcom knows that it is not in fact X, but Y. Will Arbcom tell A she is mistaken? Will they tell A whom the actual harasser is?

If off-site harassment is clearly aimed at securing a specific on-wiki objective, do Wikipedia editors have any recourse at all? Suppose X is an editor, and Y is her employee and never edits on-wiki but harasses wikipedia editors from other sites on behalf of X. This decision, with Arbcom's intended retirement from off-wiki concerns, appears to offer no recourse or defense from Y, short of litigation.

This entire matter appears to be half-baked; you are making a mistake. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sitush: Perhaps I have misunderstood the meaning of "Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee and/or to the Wikimedia Foundation Office.". As a general rule, if editors should do something, I think we expect them to do that. Perhaps I am mistaken. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While we are suggesting that the way harassment claims are handled may be due for a change, we are certainly not just going to stop handling them before such a new mechanism is in place. Editors should report, and except in the rarest case of extreme bad faith, need not fear "boomerang" sanctions even if they are mistaken. For most of the rest, while I'm sure it's not a very satisfying answer, the answer depends on the details of the specific case. A legal subpoena would likely go to WMF, and if for any reason it didn't, we'd be immediately in touch with them before doing anything else. We normally don't release private correspondence of any type to anyone, though we may summarize what was complained of should we need to contact the person. We would, if at all possible, get the input of the person who complained before initiating such contact. So far as what we can and cannot discuss with any party involved, again, that depends on the specifics of the situation and cannot be answered in general terms. Balancing giving clear reasons with privacy is always a case by case evaluation in these instances. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is understandable, but is of little service to an individual faces with what may be career-threatening harassment. In particular, the ad hoc judgment will be made, it seems, by a group of (mostly) men whose recent track record on gender issues has been subject to some doubt. How do you propose to establish the level of trust needed for threatened individuals to comply with your ?wish ?requirement to report harassment privately to you? MarkBernstein (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Roger Davies, so you're really going to open it again after it had 10 support close votes for 20 hours? This makes the ArbCom look indecisive and vulnerable to outside influence (two threads on Jimbo Wales' talk page for example). It will also reflect badly on committee members who have alredy defended their vote on this page. This whole discussion is a red herring. Lightbreather's supporters are not mentioning her battleground behavior, violations and sock-puppeting at all. It's quite puzzling that when discussing the site-ban of Lightbreather, no-one is discussing her actual behauvior which is described in detail on the Evidence page. LB was harassed outside Wikipedia, but her actual battleground behauvior at gun-control for example had nothing to do with gender. Slim Virgin's gender war rhetoric about the ArbCom being harsh on women and easy on men is, needless to say, unsubstantiated nonsense. --Pudeo' 00:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If Lightbreather were an editor who was a productive editor in the article space, or someone who strongly benefits the encyclopaedia indirectly (e.g. a vandal fighter or help desk regular) then I would be prepared to offer her much more latitude. However she is not a positive in the article space, and has not shown any willingness at all to consider she might be in the wrong (compare with the attitude displayed by The Rambling Man in the case he is a party to currently). While I am prepared to forgive some poor behaviour in response to serious harassment, I am not prepared to forgive multiple deliberate violations of the outing policy, especially after she was told explicitly not to and this was backed up by an injunction. Dispute resolution should be gender blind - whatever gender someone is or is not should be entirely irrelevant to whether their behaviour is or is not acceptable. Thryduulf (talk) 09:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Personal view: Barberio is right about the "low profile" bit (now removed), and Chillum is right about there being little useful advice for people harassed off-wiki. We have a host of principles and FoF's about this now - they may be all we can do but their net value remains low. Per some other commentary here, I contend the only additional step is the one I outlined in Protonk's section, re the community (including admins and arbcom and everyone else) taking the on-wiki sniping more seriously, especially where it relates to harassment according to identifiable personal characteristics. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how, in practice, arbitration sanctions usually paint a huge red target on the sanctioned parties inviting continuous stalking and endless trips to the drama boards and AE over even the most trivial matters, in particular with both the "broadly construed" and the trend in recent year to make all sanctions indefinite instead of time-limited, there's perhaps time for some self-reflection for the committee. In current times, the most charitable sanction has become the full site ban. The topic bans arbcom hands out are, in practice, a prime cause of on-wiki harassment. This particular committee seems rather ill equipped for that kind of reflection though. MLauba (Talk) 23:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Not clear how it relates to what I posted, which was stressing that the issue of on-wiki harassment needs to be addressed at all levels, and cannot be magically fixed by arbcom motion. -- Euryalus (talk)|

I concur with much of what Protonk has said, but am most interested in what has been said to try and rebut it. I would like to point out that attempting to exhaust all of her options on wikipedia to halt harassment has been cited as factual evidence of "Battleground behaviour and responses to good-faith criticism" per Proposed findings of fact 3.9. On the one hand you say that they could have remained within the wikipedia process, on the other you say that if you try too hard using wikipedia processes to protect yourself you may be accused of forum-shopping. In practical terms of how these findings and principles actually work when applied, there seems to be a quashing hand of the gag-order here, directed to those who are victims of harassment. --Barberio 20:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem that FoF is describing is not that Lightbreather has attempted to exhaust all of her options on wikipedia to halt harassment, but rather that she'd never take no for an answer. Whenever she received an answer she didn't like, she'd ask the same question again elsewhere and if the answer remained the same, she'd ask again elsewhere and so on. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like you to re-read the phrase "she'd never take no for an answer" and reflect on what you just said, and if you mean to present things in the way they are currently presented. --Barberio 23:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How would you describe this? She was told multiple times her allegations (of sock puppetry) were not proven and yet she did not drop the issue, that is to say she did not take no for an answer. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are creating far too low a bar on the definition of [[Vexatious Litigation|Vexatious] forum-shopping. Was Lightbringer rash, did they poorly use methods available, did they use pointed language, did they edit war? Yes. Were they Vexatious? No. There was a clear issue with fringe viewpoints being pushed, there was harassment. The findings of fact, and the principles, appear to attempt to define being "annoying" as the same as being "vexatious". This risks setting a precedent of strengthening bureaucracy, and inducing punishment of those who fall between the cracks of any particular process. --Barberio 00:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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. edit: This comment was rash. I don't mean to suggest anything beyond that the committee cannot wash away actions with talk. Posting an entirely tone-deaf decision is not absolved by pronouncing that sexual harassment is, in fact, disgusting.
  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)[reply]

Some more comments:

  • an apology is due to all active editors on the case for the unconscionable delays in producing the decision at hand. A month delay, punctuated by promises that a decision will be out shortly, is unacceptable. I don't believe that the committee will commit to a strict schedule for decisions but the least they can do is say they are sorry for putting the participants through un-needed stress.
  • Any editor who knows a journalist working on online communities should be emailing them right now. This case, following both GG and the GGTF cases, indicate to me that the committee is completely incapable and unwilling to deal with the problem of online harassment and is now serving as a serious impediment to women working on wikipedia. I hope that in time we will be able to look on the tone-deaf nature of this decision with shame and say proudly that we no longer have confidence in the arbitrators who fashioned it in our name. The only way that can happen is if we shine as bright a light as possible on the callous indifference the committee has shown for years to folks suffering from sexual harassment from vested community members. As I said after the GG decision, the community and the world at large is watching. We will not be denied a reckoning in December, when many arb terms are up. Protonk (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I emailed a version of this to Protonk, but may as well post it here too).
Everyone should recognise that off-wiki harassment is very hard to address on-wiki. Advice to contact police or off-wiki site administrators is kind of useless - the police have other things to do and site administrators usually refuse to help without court orders. But the community (or admins or Arbcom) cannot absolve itself of any responsibility for harassment simply by saying "Oh its disgusting" - if there is anything useful that can be done on-wiki, it should be done.
One thing that can and should be done is to enforce a tighter rein on people who engage in the low-level sniping seen during this and similar case. Not by creating a list of "bad words" or jumping at every shadow. But by identifying those editors who just love to bait others regarding their personal characteristics, and removing them from the community.
In this respect there is a lower community tolerance for racism than for sexism. Someone who calls other editors racist names will be blocked immediately. Someone baiting other editors via borderline sexual harassment is not. I don't know why this is, but it seems the sad reality both here and in the real world. It is something we can practically address on-wiki, by setting the same standard for any kind of harassing discourse. Had this standard been enforced in the period before and during this case, the current PD outcome might have been different.
The problem with simply making this so is it cannot be done by Arbcom fiat - it needs community backing and enforcement. And history shows the community is not presently united behind the idea that the problem actually exists. So Arbcom pass remedies relating to specific editors, a proportion of people turn a blind eye to wider concerns, and we wend our way from Gamergate to Lightbreather to whatever comes next.
And of course, nothing in the need to address harassment issues excuses editors, like Lightbreather, who simply refuse to follow WP policies. Per some comments by DGG on the PD page, there needs to be some latitude given to victims of harassment who take action in response. But this cannot be a free pass to engage in harassment of their own, or to otherwise breach on-WP policies in routine editing.
The PD addresses this specific concern. It is also written with the subtext of a site ban some weeks ago for one editor who was identified as being involved.
The PD doesn't usefully address the problem of off-wiki harassment or on-wiki sniping. There's no simple answer for that, and certainly not one that can be imposed by Arbcom resolution alone. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, per Protonk's post above and as a personal comment only, apologies to all involved in this case for the long delay in posting the PD. There was a great deal of private evidence, investigation of harassment claims and emails from case parties well after the workshop closed. Plus overlapping cases which dragged people to other areas. But I appreciate that excuses don't address the issue, and that this has been a long and wearying process for everyone. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that much of the "principle" text seems to say "We can't do everything, therefore we must do nothing." And that's hardly a good principle to establish. The ArbCom should encourage the community to continue to attempt to find acceptable harassment prevention and response guidelines, not establish that it's impossible to do so in principle. --Barberio 13:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much "we can't do everything" as "there is very little we can do, even at the best of times". We can block and ban people, but if you don't know who is responsible then how does that help? Once you've banned them then what do you do if they don't stop? We can ask other websites to supply information about their users, but few will do so without a court order. We can try getting a court order, but that's often expensive (in terms of time, money and effort) and we do not always have standing to do so. We can report people to ISPs (if we know who they are), but the vast majority just aren't interested (sadly). Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf I mean you are doing something about harassment, just to the victim. It's frustrating to see that arbcom admits that they can't resolve off site harassment and then turn around and drop the hammer on someone who has no alternatives. It's more frustrating to see arbitrators write (with a straight face, presumably) that gendered harassment isn't more pronounced than generic vandalism or trolling or (and I REALLY fucking hope this was a joke) that nobody calls women on wikipedia wikipedos. I understand the constraints that a small volunteer body faces when dealing with this stuff. I know arbs can't compel widespread and can't change policy. I also know that they can't really effect change in off-site harassment. But to see the slow-rolling of any action against gendered harassment in GGTF/GG and here as well as the veiled suggestions on the talk page above that some arbs don't really think it is a problem makes it hard for me to assume that it's not for want of trying. Protonk (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope your repeated misinterpretation of this decision and the comments on this talk page is not deliberate. Lightbreather did have alternatives to outing and attempting to out her harasser(s), and used those alternatives, but then chose to violate policy anyway. Lightbreather is facing a ban for repeated and significant breaches of Wikipedia policy, not for being female and not for being a victim of harassment.
Harassment of any sort is significantly worse than, but fortunately much less common than, either vandalism or trolling. My point is that gendered harassment is neither more or less bad than harassment which has a different basis, and that we do a disservice to those experiencing any form of harassment to claim otherwise. Per the WP:CHILDPROTECT policy, accusations of paedophilia must not be made on-wiki, but I am entirely unsure what that has to with this case as no such allegations were to my knowledge made publicly or privately regarding any party to this case. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"that gendered harassment is neither more or less bad than harassment which has a different basis, and that we do a disservice to those experiencing any form of harassment to claim otherwise." This isn't the oppression olympics. Weighing gendered harassment against other forms of harassment in terms of subjective "badness" is not useful. The differences between gendered harassment and other forms of harassment are these:
  • Gendered harassment is faced by people because of who they are. Full stop. Same with racism, homophobia, transphobia.
  • Gendered harassment is, broadly, much more acceptable on wiki than other forms of harassment. This is not even remotely in dispute.
  • Gendered harassment is faced by a small fraction of the community and is largely ignored or marginalized by those who have not faced it. It is both a cause and a symptom of the gender gap on wikipedia.
As for the wikipedo comment, I'm referring to your words here.
"I sincerely hope your repeated misinterpretation of this decision and the comments on this talk page is not deliberate." And I sincerely hope all arbs whose terms are up will go home in December, but we're all not going to get what we want. Look, my point on this is pretty clear. Arbcom chose to sanction LB for trying to find the username of someone sexually harassing her. That is, of course, against the letter of policy. It's also pretty clearly a choice (given the surfeit of evidence of other wrongs) to include it in the PD. The drafting arbs could have easily not included it and still had the outcome of the case go roughly the same way. But instead they (and all the arbs signing it) signaled that is an important part of the case and now it's in the record. I won't begrudge you your interpretation, but mine is in no way deficient. Protonk (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom chose to sanction LB for trying to find the username of someone sexually harassing her. That's slightly inaccurate. Lightbreather already thought she knew who the perpetrator was. She said as much on Wikipediocracy: I have figured out who this man is and tied him to his Wikipedia username. You guys love this gossipy, cloak-and-dagger stuff. Any guesses? Now, I'm not supporting the FoF, because I deem it superfluous, but the point is that the functionaries investigated the allegations and at least one arbitrator followed up on their investigation with his own. We took her allegations seriously, we pointed her to a series of resources dealing with harassment, put her in contact with the Foundation and they too tried to help her. Finally, we asked her to please try and get the IPs used by her harasser, to use them to link him to his Wikipedia account, if any. She, instead, went to Wikipediocracy and it was not to get help in finding out the identity of her harasser, because, as I said, she already thought she knew it. Now, I have my opinion as to why she did it, but as far as I'm concerned, her reasons are neither here nor there, because, for me, her conduct on wiki is enough to warrant a site ban and actually has made it inevitable. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above comments from LB about their inability to get an IP from the forum, I'm not sure what alternative they had if they wanted the harassment to stop. Prayer, maybe. Protonk (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the process accusing someone who may be innocent of something which is illegal in various jurisdictions. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the hill we're going to die on? Protonk (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
actually, the real solution for Lightbreather would be to go back in time and register "Light_Breather" on Wikipediocracy. Then we would have had no clue who was asking for the identity of those harassers. It would've been a divine mystery, not suitable for investigation by mere mortals. Protonk (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't seen the evidence she sent us; I have. So your sarcasm isn't that justified. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find an appeal to hidden evidence very convincing. Protonk (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you haven't seen the evidence, and yet you take it for granted that Lightbreather got it right and that her posting on Wikipediocracy was necessary for her to get the harasser to stop and, so, her conduct was entirely defensible. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm referring in this snarky comment to Arbcom's refusal to connect the dots to another editor in a previous case (see an email from me to the arbs a month or so ago). given that I'm relying on a summary of hidden evidence here, I don't see much point to continuing this particular thread. Protonk (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, I didn't get the reference. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gaijin42: I don't think arbcom is going to resolve the issue of gendered harassment in this case. And I don't think they had the power to grant LB relief. As Salvio giuliano says above, that FoF is superfluous. The case could've been carried out without sanctioning an editor for trying to find the identity of her harasser. Beyond that, I'm furious at the repeated statements on this talk page from committee members downplaying gendered harassment by saying essentially "well, men have it rough too". That's an indication of a larger problem--an unwillingness to grapple with the obvious danger and ubiquity of gendered harassment on the internet and an abrogation of reality on wikipedia (Again, the GGTF and GG cases shows what happens when women talk out of turn). Protonk (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree w/ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz about the use of DENY to justify not naming the editor banned for harassment. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed on the mailing list at the moment. I have asked the clerks to hold off on closing the case, while we hopefully reach a consensus. Salvio Let's talk about it! 00:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not WP:DENY but possible WMF privacy policy ramifications.  Roger Davies talk 00:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And we were told it was DENY...because? Protonk (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. Perhaps because WP:DENY/WP:BEANS is often the reason for keeping the darker side under wraps, to avoid creating copy-cats?  Roger Davies talk 00:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken's section

Regarding closing the case: In several recent cases I complained that they were on the verge of being closed while a number of things were still mathematically possible to pass if more Arbs had voted. Here we seem to have the opposite situation. it looks to me as if everyone or almost everyone has voted, pretty much everything (or an alternative) has passed, and there are still no votes on closing. Is there a reason this case is being held open? Is there an expectation of a significant change in the voting? If not, should this long-delayed case be wrapped up and sent to the showers? BMK (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: It's untransparent and not ideal, but for convenience's sake correspondence about case closures sometimes takes place on the mailing lists. This covers both the use cases you highlight: whether to close or debate more on some points; and whether to close despite it being arithmetically possible to pass. As I said, far from ideal; but it may explain the apparent loss of traction near the end of voting. AGK [•] 03:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable, but don't you think, then, that a notice to the effect that "Discussion is ongoing on the ArbCom mailing list as to whether to close this case" might be worthwhile? I certainly understand that some evidence and discussion of evidence cannot be revealed to the general Wikipedia public because of privacy concerns, but such a notice would let everybody know that closure was being dealt with, even if specifics about the close could not be specified. BMK (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: Yes, definitely. I'll try to remind the clerks in future to update the public record with mailing list developments like this. AGK [•] 17:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia's section

This case is finally all but over, so ironically, this comment is late. Since I saw the original proposed decision I've been unable to come up with anything to say that was both cogent and civil, so I suppose there's not much left but to express general disappointment that after long delays - in which arbs individually and collectively found time to invest in much more inconsequential on-wiki drama - a decision was offered that was amateurish, tone-deaf, context-oblivious, and insensitive. Thank you all for listening to other comments here and removing the most obviously objectionable parts of it, at least.

I wanted to make one point about the concerns here related to 'outing'. Yes, the asymmetry of this decision is incredibly frustrating, and the initial draft and some of subsequent comments about it reek of oblivious privilege. Yes, it feels completely ridiculous that no one can mention the usernames of the editors involved even though everyone who has been following this case obviously knows them and has seen what's been posted elsewhere. But I think something important is being lost in focusing on the details of this specific case. Robust protection of on-wiki anonymity, for those who choose to maintain it, is critical to the safe participation of women in an open online community, particularly given the fact that online sexual harassment often includes doxxing attempts and law enforcement is often ineffectual at dealing with these issues. Wikipedia's traditional commitment to protecting the privacy of its contributors is important even in the face of a fact pattern that makes it appear perverse. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that many of the encyclopedia's structures and policies are less fit for purpose than they were five years ago. My own view is that trust and safety issues - outing, doxxing, harassment, anonymous etc - should be handled not by a bunch of part-timers but by experienced professionals people with a budget for legal assistance for victims. Many of the problems would go away if people understood that their actions would have likely consequences, and that they might find themselves in court, facing either criminal charges or civil proceedings for restraining orders and damages. And the outcome was publicised.  Roger Davies talk 01:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear. WormTT(talk) 14:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few responses here:
  • I absolutely agree that it is not reasonable or sustainable to expect part-time volunteers whose most visible role is in on-wiki dispute resolution to also handle this kind of behavior.
  • That being said, the participants in this case had good reason to believe that arbcom was a reasonable community venue for complaints about, and action taken against, these issues. The entire construction of this case - from the early decisions related to whether it would be accepted and who the named parties would be, to the handling of unambiguous harassment toward the end - failed to either uphold or explicitly abdicate that responsibility.
  • Punting to law enforcement, either directly or through WMF legal assistance, isn't a great option either. Law enforcement is well known to be ineffective at handling these issues. This is particularly true of harassment directed at an online persona for purposes of influencing online behavior. Law enforcement is not generally sophisticated about the value of a persistent and identifiable but pseudonymous online identity.
  • Although the option to lower one's profile obviously should be respected, that the advice appeared at all on-wiki is a serious misstep. Arguments like DHeyward's are now ripe to be twisted into less well-meaning commentary in the inevitable next harassment case. "Well, the harassment must not really be that bad if you're still here." / "You didn't keep a low profile; are you sure you aren't just here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS?" / "You say you're concerned for your safety but you're still posting, so I think you're just exploiting it to advance your agenda." / etc. etc. etc.
  • A lot of the commentary related to this case has been well-meant but, for lack of a better word, mansplainy. "White cis males also get harassed", etc. Yes, that's true, and that's terrible.* It's also consistently trying to decenter the point that this case is a group of mostly men passing judgment about the behavior of a woman who was harassed by men, as a result of her participation in an online community of mostly men, with roots in the technology / free culture / FLOSS communities which are again, mostly men. There's been a lot of emphasis on various problems with Lightbreather's conduct and very little analysis of what it means that the behavioral norms she's being held to and the dispute resolution mechanisms available to her evolved in a community of mostly men.
*And surely it hasn't escaped notice that the example offered is itself a gendered accusation?
Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant's section

I have no objection to the ArbCom decision in this case, because I haven't studied the case closely. I was intrigued by this exchange here at this page between User:AGK and User:Gorilla Warfare:

I cannot emphasise how disruptive to the project it is to be an editor who drains the community's administrative resources, and who hampers collaboration, for a period of years. This is why we arrived at this decision today. AGK [•] 03:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

That might be why you arrived at this decision. I certainly did not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope AGK is not saying that a person needs to be sanctioned if enough people complain loudly enough and long enough. ARBCOM should never assume that where there's smoke there's fire, or penalize someone for raising defenses that Wikipedia has made available. See also Brandolini’s law. I think it would be great if someone drains administrative resources to successfully show what nonsense has been flung against them. And hampers collaboration by sticking to WP:NPOV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying nothing of the sort. You have not quoted the relevant earlier part of my comment in which I said I supported the remedy because the user needed to be removed from the project due to disruptive conduct. The commentary during voting made, I think, it quite clear that we were not "punishing" LIghtbreather for having enemies; in fact, this is something we were quite careful to take into account – it is par for the course in disputes that come to arbitration and we are more than capable of counting it as mitigation. AGK [•] 17:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I replaced your blockquotes with a quotation template to make it clearer that you had lifted our comments and were quoting them. AGK [•] 17:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It probably would have been better for you to have omitted the language that I quoted, but your clarification helps. Incidentally, maybe the best way to stop the drain upon administrative resources would be for you to enforce your written limits on the amount of evidence that each accuser can present, and use the boomerang more frequently when that evidence turns out to be bogus (either here or at arbitration enforcement). Turning people into punching bags is not a good way to improve their collegiality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward's section

Just want to clarify, from a law enforcement perspective, the advice is absolutely to be non-confrontational with harassers. This is quite different from, say Gandhi's view of active, non-violent resistance. I think there are many that recall active, non-violent resistance that has ended badly for the resistors in the short term though may be good for a "movement." Gandhi himself took many beatings and students at Kent State were killed. However, the police don't advocate resistance that leads to personal injury or death. Police are very limited in action they can take and this is evidenced by the frustration that victims of harassment express. Police cannot provide 24/7 protection and they can arrest only with probable cause that a crime has been committed and cannot hold without bail. The adage is: "When seconds count, police are minutes away." The advice given by police is to a) report the harassment b) don't confront the harasser and c) if the police determine they can't make an arrest and the victim is concerned about their safety, they should get away from the harasser. Women's shelters and safe spaces are founded on this principle and it's ludicrous to suggest that the people that advocate for the existence and use of safe spaces and women's shelters are somehow "blaming the the victim." An order of protection is not bullet proof and many victims of DV have them when they are assaulted. Anti-rape training, for example, advocates a lot of techniques for rape avoidance, defensive strategies and ultimately, survival strategies. That is also not "blaming the victim" by training survival strategies that may end up being a surviving rape victim. Some police may even, unofficially (in the U.S.), suggest purchasing, training with and legally carrying a firearm (that's how police deal with violent threats to their life or limb). That advice is not advocating murder, though, just as advice to seek a safe space is not blaming the victim..

This is common sense advice. Note that police will also stress that persons that lawfully kill their attackers, that method of confrontation is not recommended, even as they commend the shooter or good samaritan. They will also arrest the shooter if they cannot lawfully justify it whence the advice to move (i.e. seek a safe space or be non-confrontational.). There are victims of long-term domestic violence that are in prison because they chose the wrong time or wrong method to confront an abuser. Those are facts and it's easy to find DV related murder trials where "self-defense" was not strong enough or the threat immediate enough to justify active retaliation and the long term victim is sent to prison because of snap response. --DHeyward (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, since some comments have been made that misunderstand both my point and apparently the purpose of Wikipedia. Dharasana Satyagraha is an example of active, non-violent resistance. To quote Gandhi when spoke to the marchers on the salt works about the risk of standing against oppression: "You must not use any violence under any circumstances. You will be beaten, but you must not resist: you must not even raise a hand to ward off blows." - Police will not give that advice to victims of harassment. No one will be asked to martyr themselves and take a beating. Nor is Wikipedia a place for such activism. Absolutely, Wikipedia should do what they can do within policy and within the law to protect people from abuse. We should also give practical advice for personal safety, not martyr advice to advance a cause. I think everyone recognizes why Gandhi gave his advice above. I think everyone would recognize that each individual has a choice to participate as to what risks to take. "lying low" or "seeking a safe place" is practical advice to individuals but it's not advice that those seeking institutional change would give to those willing to be martyred for a cause. Recognizing that people need to "lie low" or keep a "low profile" is respecting an individuals right to safety and their right to make that choice. Women's shelters were created because of that recognized right and need for safety. No one is telling them "you must not use any violence under any circumstances. You will be beaten, but you must not resist: you must not even raise a hand to ward off blows." In fact, no one is even asking them to stay in a place they feel threatened. Wikipedia is not the place to refuse such requests or to not offer such remedies that create anonymity. "cleanstart" accounts for example are a method that is available. Offering that service in no way is giving refuge to harassers. It's a recognition that safety is more than changing bad behavior and RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS over the long term. Those opposed to "and consider lowering their profile until the threat is past" and "notifying local law enforcement" should consider whether they would would give this advice to their friends.

Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, DGG, Yunshui If a personal friend were the victim of domestic violence, would you really not give them advice to seek out a safe shelter where they could lie low anonymously? Would you counsel them not to seek out law enforcement and say it's based "on principle?" I think it's quite the opposite. Wikipedia should support all avenues of safety and "on principle" list all the ones we can think of. WMF, Police, cleanstart, ArbCom, ANI, etc, etc,. Choosing to leave out a course of action "on principle" seems to presume that Wikipedia should be pursuing social justice through martyrdom and the above example in India. It's a noble cause, just not our cause.

I have not kept up on LB or this case but the principles don't change. We seek a safe editing environment for building an encyclopedia. We don't leave out options because it appears to be "giving in" to the harassers. Anything that makes it safer is defeating the harassers, not giving in to them and that includes laying low, safe spaces, clean start and law enforcement. can you imagine police trying to persuade a victim of abuse to stay in a home with a violent offender because it is their right to live there? It is their right. They can choose to do so. But the advice and card the police will give is for them to go to the domestic violence shelter and get away from the abuser. --DHeyward (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I think we agree that options are the key. Every option that reduces the threat to wikipedians writing the encyclopedia whether it's harassment or threats of violence should be available. No option is bad nor stigmatizing. No one wants harassment or violence but we cannot make the safety choice or stigmatize certain choices. Claiming "cleanstart", for example as a "blame the victim" choice is akin to saying moving to a "womens shelter" is a "blame the victim" choice. Yes, it's horrible that society needs women shelters. The solution to a persons immediate problem, though, isn't to remove "women's shelters" from the list of options. Not going to a shelter might be the personal choice of someone standing up to societal injustice, but it is not a choice we should be thrusting on others especially because this is not a place where we battle societal injustice. "cleanstart" is a choice. We should not stigmatize that choice if an editor feels safer taking that path. It should be our principle that all choices within policy that make an editor feel safer are, simply, a principle. Incidentally, there should be no finding of fact that criticizes an editor for not making that choice. We simply shouldn't hide it from them as if such actions were shameful. --DHeyward (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If a personal friend was the victim of domestic violence, I would probably help them research their options and decide what's best for them. That's what we're suggesting in this decision, and nowhere are we removing the option for a victim of harassment to lower their profile if they decide that is their best option. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare:All the constraints placed on LB's account and the removal of the specific items on the "reducing harassment" principle as "blame the victim" seem incongruent with your statement. Personally, I would let her change her name or disappear considering the harassment she has received. She's site banned (or looks that way). IMO, Arbcom, privately, should find out if she wants a new username, create it for her and block it privately for the duration and, privately, discuss what she wants done with her current account, if anything. It should not be perceived as "blaming he victim" to offer such things as was suggested in other comments. It's unfortunate that we cannot identify all the harassers but that shouldn't mean she has to have an account that is tied to that harassment while she is site-banned. I, personally, would like to see that as a principle considering we are unable to address the harassment in total. If she wanted her account deleted and salted because of harassment we acknowledge has occurred both on site and off site, we should accommodate it regardless of block/ban/account restriction is imposed. Even an account creation request with the appropriate block length should be accommodated.--DHeyward (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Potto's section

I'm late to this, I really don't know anything of what led to it, and I can therefore offer no argument concerning the remedies decided by the Arbcom.

But I do want to offer a few comments about the abuse that Lightbreather has suffered, and I wish to express my disappointment that nothing has been done about it. I've seen some of the abuse in question, and as a man I am horrified that another who identifies himself with the same gender as me can possibly think that what he did is in any way acceptable. If someone abused my wife, daughter, sister, granddaughter, or friends like that, my instinct would be visit physical punishment upon him if no better justice was forthcoming (and before anyone overreacts to that comment, I'm a long way away and would not actually do anything).

I have seen the evidence that Lightbreather has presented at another forum (which a number of arbs have chosen not to see, even though they easily could), and I really cannot see how anyone can think it is not conclusive - the username trails, the actual photographs, the attraction to pornography, and the other personal details, well, the odds of pure chance are vanishingly small.

I don't know what could have been done under the current Wikipedia constitution, but if people externally take it upon themsleves to pursue this further then that is surely in no small way the fault of Wikipedia for not dealing with it.

I don't actually blame the arbs for it, as their hands are hopelessly tied by policy (and by the fact that it should be WMF responsible), but if this is the best that Wikipedia can do about such things in these days when online sociology is so well developed, then I despair. Mr Potto (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You confirm my point about possible vigilantism by stating that your instinct would be physical punishment. The evidence that Lightbreather submitted both to Functionaries and to WO, as well as other evidence, has been extensively discussed not just by Arbitrators but also, and mainly, on the Functionaries list,and thus has had considerably more analysis than it would have had if it only the committee had been involved. The WMF has also been involved as I assume you know. We've seen all the evidence you have seen so far as I know, and the consensus was that the evidence was simply not good enough. One major concern was that it might result in vigilante evidence against the wrong person. You're entitled to your opinion but you are of course unaware of the factors we considered in our analysis of the points you mention. Doug Weller (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was indeed partly my point - that the possibility of vigilante action generally comes from the proper people not doing what they should do in the first place. When the right thing is not done by those who should be doing it, people will take things into their own hands, and that's rarely a good outcome. I appreciate that there were factors behind your decision that I cannot see, but the fact remains that there is a failure here, and I think that failure lies with the WMF. They have the resources to pursue legal avenues where the victim can't (for example, attempting to get a legal order for a disclosure by the owners of the site on which one of the forms of harassment took place), but they won't do that. The attitude of the WMF (from this case and from other cases I've heard of) appears to be "You do all the work to build our encyclopedia, but if you suffer any personal harm in the process then you're on your own". Anyway, at the end of it all, my overwhelming feeling is one of disappointment, and I'm honestly not sure that this is a site I want to help with any more. Mr Potto (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As has been repeatedly pointed out, while the WMF do have resources to take legal action they do not necessarily have the legal standing to do so - in some places the court will only grant such an injunction if the victim of the harassment is the one applying for it. That is wrong, but that is not a wrong that we or the WMF can do anything about.
Regarding the right people doing the wrong thing, yes it would be wrong of us not to take action against an editor who was harassing someone else, but it would be equally wrong for us to take action against someone who was responsible for the harassment. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re the first point, WMF might not be the ones to take the action, but they could fund it. Just as they offer grants for all sorts of things, they could (and I say should) offer financial support in cases like this.
Second point: Yes, you (Arbcom) may well have done the right thing, but my opinion is that the WMF did not, which is a distinction you seem to have missed. Mr Potto (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support extending the Legal Fees Assistance Program to harassment victims (and I know for a fact that at least one person proposed it in this instance), but that's something only the Foundation can do. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The site itself seems to be based on a tiny country in the Caribbean, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, quite likely to make it extremely difficult to get anything out of them. The legal system just can't cope with this sort of cyberbullying. Doug Weller (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in this case that actual avenue wouldn't have gotten anywhere, and sure, every individual case will present its own difficulties. But there's an example below of someone who constantly threatens rape and death, where WMF knows the perp's name and address in the USA, yet still does nothing! Individual case difficulties notwithstanding, the current situation where WMF does pretty much nothing at all to assist people suffering harassment is not a good one. In my view Wikimedia/Wikipedia desperately needs some grown-up policies to deal with harassment, pursued by WMF and not by an inadequately-equipped volunteer team. And you know, I'm actually quite shocked by the number of people I've seen here defending the status quo. Mr Potto (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Committee isn't defending the status quo, and is backing the new WMF initiative to deal with harassment, in the first instance specifically gender-related harassment. I don't know anything about the specific instance you are referring to. Doug Weller (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know, thanks. The case below (the very next section, containing links) is JarlaxleArtemis, which I feel sure you must have heard of. Mr Potto (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I certainly have. AKA Grawp. I've followed up on this now. Doug Weller (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra's section

The resolutions presently gives editors a hope that Wikipedia will do something about harassment: this is false.

They will not.

For the last 5 years I have received hundreds of rape and murder threats (admins can look at logs on my user-page), besides having user-names made like this and this. And even if my talk-page is protected on en.wp, the abuse continues at meta, on commons, and at articles I edit, just look at Jaffa: "edit summary removed".

You could rather pass a resolution that says:

  • "Editors will not receive any substantial help to stop online harassment on Wikipedia".

Because that is the truth. Don´t give editors a false hope.

(Btw; Wikipedia is *seriously* damaged here. I´ve been online since the 1980s, and I´m old enough to be the grandmother of some of the admins here: but Wikipedia is the *only* place ever, where I have encountered death threats, or rape threats in my life.)

And I have seen it again and again in the I/P area: editors arrive at Wikipedia, sometimes with lots of experience, but still becomes completely unnerved by the harassment and abuse they are met with.

Lightbreather is not a "perfect victim". But frankly, I do not have much respect for people who have never experienced serious harassment, demanding and expecting that those who are should behave in a "perfect victim" way. I don´t think you have any idea as to just how unnerving harassment is, Huldra (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much why I am opposing the ban, and think it is a mistake to pass it. This was genuine real harassment, not the "someone was mean to me on the internet!" way the word is often misused. Her response was not perfect, but I am not willing to ban someone for a response to harassment. I have no idea what it would be like to be subject to what she has been subjected to. What issues there are outside of the harassment response can be cleaned up with lesser sanctions (and indeed, such sanctions are passing). If she had done the things she did while not under these trying circumstances, the actions would be worthy of a ban. But under the circumstances, banning her a in no way a proper response. Courcelles (talk) 00:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you probably know, my team is the one that would be responsible for investigation and any potential liaising with law enforcement and/or our in-house legal team. I’d like to clarify and explain a little bit more about our approach to these situations. First, I completely understand how frustrating and upsetting it is to be targeted by this kind of behavior; I’ve been a target of similar things myself. It’s maddening, and scary, and a whole range of other emotions. But it's not correct to say that the WMF has done nothing on this case. You could reword it as "I am not aware - because the WMF makes it a policy never to talk about ongoing investigations - whether the WMF has or has not taken any action. Clearly the abusive behavior has not yet stopped," and that would be a justifiable, defensible statement. And while I will not tell you what the WMF has done, I can tell you a couple of things: First, our options for engagement range from low-impact monitoring up to legal action or referrals to law enforcement; and second: the person you mention has definitely made my list of "Top Five Most Concerning, To Whom I Devote the Most Time". So while it may appear that there's nothing happening, that's the not at all an accurate reflection of what’s really happening. It just means that it’s not happening in public (and of course, there would be no reasonable way for you to know what was happening - I’m not trying to place any fault on you for this… I’m just trying to explain the current state).
We will probably never be able to tell you what the WMF did or did not do in this case. We do make an effort to brief community members (for instance, stewards) when the situation warrants it, but we cannot comment on ongoing cases. This practice prevents us from injuring the case and potentially prejudicing the outcome. But speaking generally, over the last year and a half, the amount of money that the WMF has devoted to our "Trust and Safety" functions has radically increased. The actual hours that we are able to dedicate to this function (which was previously a function that we needed to squeeze in around a cornucopia of other projects) is now substantially increased - an increase which has been reflected in the additional headcount for my team (in fact, our most recent hire was recruited with exactly this core competency in mind; she’s done similar work at another site). We're investing heavily, also, in community systemic change. For instance, I've got two team members at Wikimania right now who are convening a ton of conversations on this and similar topics. The good news is, all of these things together represent a massive investment of resources toward combatting this issue. But there’s some bad new as wells: even if we do everything perfectly, we may never shut this guy down.
I'm going to speak very frankly here: our blocking tools suck. When I was doing a similar job at AOL almost 20 years ago, we had far more advanced tooling than we do currently as part of MediaWiki. It is a trivial matter to defeat blocks, and any vandal worth his salt can do it in his sleep. That leaves me rather holding the bag.... on the one hand, the WMF has a community demand that "Something must be done!", but on the other, I have no tools that can actually enforce anything that we do. It is almost unrealistic to think that we can keep a determined party from editing the site - not without massive amounts of collateral damage to innocent parties. So, until there's a next generation of tools, I honestly don't think we'll be able to keep him off the wiki - not technically, anyway. So that leaves us with policy and legal actions as options for containing him... and it would be a smart bet to say that I'm investigating what those options are. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision&oldid=671746641"