Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: L235 (Talk) & Liz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Doug Weller (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk) & Euryalus (Talk)

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.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors[edit]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket[edit]

If I may a suggestion, this my indeed be in violation of my Iban and feel free to block away or remove if it is. If allowed to participate may I suggest zero interaction between them and only posting of evidence with restrictions from the talkpages for all bans. I actually have enjoyed the quiet of the interaction ban and while I would like to provide evidence it reduces the drama if replies are not allowed and same stuff outside of the request/evidence phase alone should be allowed. It should make the waters clearer and calmer while allowing evidence to be provided. I refrain from comment to the merits of the case request as I believe it would be a gross violation to do so at this point without clarification. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

Having gone through it myself, I'm not keen on seeing an editor taken to Arbitration. Perhaps the IBANS will suffice. PS- Wikipedia would be better served if we all view editors as neutral gender. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched[edit]

Without a doubt, this case needs to see the light of day. If this Arbcom truly is about finding what is best for en.wiki, then you damn well need to view this. — Ched :  ?  02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Euryalus: if the committee feels that the person that's bringing the case has no grounds, then I offer to bring it. — Ched :  ?  04:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capeo[edit]

I've watched this brew for almost a year now. And in that time Lightbreather has been a regular locus of discord and drama beyond any other user I can think of. The case needs to be seen. After I saw this I've started collecting diffs and can provide them here in a day or two, or if it becomes clear the case will be accepted, in evidence instead. Capeo (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • To elaborate a bit on Carrite's comment: Lightbreather presented evidence in the GGTF case, "retired", socked to try to affect the outcome, got caught and wrongfully accused the user who brought her to SPI of outing, went on a major sock witch hunt using the same methods of ip geolocation she claimed the day before constituted outing, was unsuccessful in her SPIs, came off a far too short block, and then "unretired". Capeo (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • LB's additions perfectly illustrate her battleground mentality. They're simply attempts to retry her failed SPIs or finally get sanctions on editors she has tried repeatedly to get sanctioned (going as far as socking in the GGTF ArbCom case). This is a pattern when things don't go her way. Such as when Scalhotrod joined the GGTF and LB responds with a PA and notes Scalhotrod's participation in the the Porn project [1] then quits after other members ask her to AGF [2] and opens an ANI [3] that is quickly closed. So what does she do to avoid someone claims is harassing her? A few days later she joins the Porn project [4] and begins extensive editing then claims Scalhotrod is stalking [5] then initiates another failed ANI [6]. When I point out it was odd to follow someone you're trying to avoid to a project they are active in she calls my post a distraction. Eventually, as can be seen in the diff Karanacs provided she offers to quit the Porn project if Scalhotrod will quit the GGTF, basically admitting she only started editing porn to force her perceived opponents hand. There's also her response to being caught socking. There's too many diffs to post here but the response wasn't contrition, it was to claim she was a victim while simultaneously trying to connect every IP in the case to actual users and claim sockpuppetry. Going so far in one case that she had to have one of her edit summaries revdeled as it could have constituted outing. Since then there have been more failed accusations of sockpuppetry against some of the users she has listed above and of course the latest Sitush and EC blowup where she went unbidden to EC's page to post in a three week old thread that had nothing to do with her. There's no shortage of this behavior that can be further demonstrated if this case is taken. At this point I fear I'm closing on my word limit so I'll leave it at that. Capeo (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite[edit]

This individual "retired" right ahead of the Gender Gap Task Force Case and "unretired" right after the close, thereby neatly escaping scrutiny. It might be time. Carrite (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scalhotrod, request to be excused[edit]

Given the requests for amendment that LB made[7], I am asking to be excused from this proceeding and not be named as a party. I was not involved in the Gun control or the GGTF ArbComs. In fact, my only direct connection was the ArbCom Enforcement about Gun Control that LB brought against me which resulted in a 6 month Topic Ban for both of us. Thank you, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ca2james[edit]

Lightbreather's behaviour has been problematic wherever she has edited and so I think a new case should be opened instead of amending either the Gun Control or GGTF cases. I also think that the case should be focused on her behaviour specifically rather than that of the list of editors she's named above. That list includes the editors with whom she's had lots of conflict but her disruptive behaviour goes beyond just those editors to any editors who disagree with her. I recognize that the other editors may not have behaved perfectly, but it is difficult for almost anyone to behave perfectly when faced with the kind of incivility and battleground tendencies that Lightbreather has shown. I have approached Lightbreather several times about the tone of her posts towards certain other editors, as I have found her posts to be uncivil, dismissive, pointy, and combative. Edited to remove example previously provided; will save it for evidence. Ca2james (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jehochman[edit]

I don't like interaction bans. If an editor can't get along with somebody, they should be told to disengage, and if they don't have the ability to disengage themselves (after perhaps a few suggestions) the next step is disengage them via a block. When there are multiple interaction bans, that's a sure sign that too much has been tolerated. A case, unfortunately, provides a stage for grandstanding, counterclaims, and arguments of moral equivalence. It would be better for somebody to just hit the block button and be done with it. This solution would also be kinder, because an ArbCom ban is a much stricter sanction than an administrator's block.

Statement by John Carter[edit]

Libhtbreather has recently displayed, as per the "retirement"/socking mentioned above, a serious tendency to attempt to game the system, in addition to other problematic behavior. Considering the GAMEing probably falls outside of the i-bans, and is itself a serious issue, even without the remarkably high number of i-bans this individual seems to have accumulated, I think that there is sufficient basis for thinking ArbCom should review the behavior of those involved in this case. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Floq[edit]

Sooner rather than later, a clerk may want to let Lightbreather know about the 500 word limit, and about how most evidence should be saved for the evidence page if a case is accepted. She's already at 250% of the 500 word limit, and has provided evidence on only two of the 9 people that are parties or that she wants to add as parties. I don't know how you're going to handle the volume of evidence that is going to want to be provided on the evidence page, but I guess you can cross that bridge when you come to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Four minutes?! That's impressive. I didn't know I had that kind of power. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Faceless Enemy[edit]

I've already said my piece on the unfounded SPI. I know LB had a hard time dropping it back then too, so I'm not particularly surprised that she's trying to revive it again. (I feel that Mike V deserves a ping here, since I added a link to his TP.) Whatever. Also, I don't think editing gun control articles is inconsistent with my editing history at all; the first article I edited was AK-47, and I was editing the Brady Campaign article back in May 2010. I think the original SPI was started in bad faith, and the call for it to be re-opened is being made in bad faith again. Her point about me and Godsy and anyone else who disagrees with her seems to boil down to "a pro-gun editor got banned for socking once. All other pro-gun editors must be socks!" Her paranoia about socking ain't there for Felsic/162.119.231.132 though. I don't see the issue with a merger proposal for an article that has been nominated for GA. If it's a merge worth discussing, it's worth discussing while the GA review is ongoing. As to our back and forth at the NRA page, it was predicated on the fact that she said here that she hadn't even read the edits I made. I thought after this discussion that we would be okay, as my impression at the time was that she objected to my removing content. The point of the majority of work I had done on the page was to re-add stronger sources for stuff, but she was willing to blatantly violate 3RR to keep the page at her preferred version. (NB: she edited the page afterward, but made sure that anything we disagreed on stayed the way she liked it.) Capitalismojo and Spike Wilbury may be able to comment further. I think "battleground" would be a fair word to use for how an article starts to feel when LB shows up, apparently no matter what the topic is. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:50 & ~11:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather: Again, please refer to me as "they", not "he". I don't know where you've picked up the idea that I'm male. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mark Miller[edit]

I support accepting this case as there is clearly sufficient history for concern and a number of issues brought up above that are a bit distressing to hear. And that's a lot of Ibans.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fae[edit]

"Battleground mentality" is manageable by other community processes. I am puzzled as to why Arbcom is keen to accept this case rather than leaving resolution to an open consensus, and the trusted users that have sufficient tools to handle this without a burdensome case. The GGTF case was not healthy for the community, this request touches some of the same sore points. Low key procedures and encouragement for improved collegiate behaviour from all parties would be a refreshing change from high profile cases and indefinite sanctions that will appear punitive to the outside viewer.

As the case is certain to be accepted, in considering actions, I hope Arbcom sees the wisdom of delegating to the wider community. --Fæ (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for WP:SEMI protection for case pages[edit]

L235: Since WP:ILLEGIT does not allow editing project space using undisclosed alternative accounts, or while logged out (as I learned the hard way during the GGTF ArbCom), and since there were at least 19 IP/logged-out participants (in addition to me) in the GGTF ArbCom...

Address - Geolocation early Dec. 2014 (where known)

  1. 90.213.181.169 Rochdale, UK (Greater Manchester)
  2. 12.249.243.118 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  3. 2.125.151.139 Rochdale, UK (Greater Manchester)
  4. 122.177.11.190 Delhi, India
  5. 204.101.237.139 Ontario
  6. 71.11.1.204 Stamford, Connecticut
  7. 67.255.123.1 Vestal, New York
  8. 94.54.249.249 Istanbul

Address - Geolocation 3 May 2015

  1. 176.28.103.210 Spain
  2. 61.70.142.155 Tainan, Taiwan
  3. 122.162.75.136 Delhi, India
  4. 69.16.147.185 Phoenix, Arizona
  5. 87.254.87.183 Douglas, Isle of Man
  6. 80.174.78.59 Sevilla, Spain
  7. 61.235.249.163 Beijing, China
  8. 189.109.13.162 São Paulo, Brazil
  9. 2600:1011:B146:306D:F43A:C42E:BC0A:45F6 cell phone
  10. 96.254.99.51 Sarasota, Florida
  11. 76.72.20.218 Lafayette, Louisiana

... I request that this case's pages be WP:SEMI-protected while the case is open to prevent disruption of that kind. L235, would you make sure my request is seen by the arbitrators? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather: I have brought this request to the arbitrators' attention. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any similarity in the lists from the two cases. If there's an inference you think should be drawn from those lists, it would be helpful if you would please state it. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The list is to document that there were at least 19 IP/logged-out editors who participated in the GGTF ArbCom in addition to myself. Since three of the editors Karanacs named in her case request were formally involved parties in the GGTF ArbCom, and since another editor was heavily involved in discussions in that ArbCom, and since that case closed less than six months ago, I think it's possible that people who participated in that case will also participate in this one. If this case's pages are not semi-protected, the list may be helpful to see if (these) IP/logged-out editors contribute to this case. Lightbreather (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might have made more sense to prepare this list after editors had participated instead of before since no one has caused disruption on this case so far. It also isn't clear why geolocation matters, when not all editors name their location. Ca2james (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L235, Liz: The vandalism has started.[8] Can we please semi-protect the case pages? Also, can we do my user pages as well? Lightbreather (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitrators declined this suggestion already and this seems like an isolated edit right now, rather than a pattern of edits. But I will bring the question to them and see what they have to say. Liz Read! Talk! 00:21, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This puzzles me a great deal since WP:ILLEGIT says "Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project." That was part of the case against me during the GGTF ArbCom, that my claim of editing logged out for privacy was superceded by the not-in-discussions-internal-to-the-project rule. Lightbreather (talk) 00:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main case page statements[edit]

L235: Re this addition - [9] - Is the main case page still open for statements? Lightbreather (talk) 14:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 14:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Lightbreather (October 2015)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz at 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Lightbreather arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Site-ban


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • That an exception be made to Lightbreather's sanctions, allowing her to respond on-wiki to on-wiki criticisms, paralleling the exception advocated for Eric Corbett, making an exception to his topic ban allowing him to respond on-wiki to off-wiki criticisms


Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz[edit]

Lightbreather has been subjected to innuendo, aspersions, derogatory comments and personal attacks in connection with the discussion of the recent block and unblock of Eric Corbett. There is strong community sentiment that, despite his topic ban, Corbett should be allowed to comment on-wiki about comments and accusations made against him off-wiki. Given that no one was been sanctioned or warned for their attacks on Lightbreather, and no comments have apparently been removed or suppressed, it is only fair that she be afforded the same opportunity to respond on-wiki to on-wiki attacks and criticism, especially since much of that commentary rests on assertions made without evidence. It is anomalous that such comments may be freely made about Lightbreather while statements made about the male editor (not Corbett, to avoid any confusion) accused with evidence of sexually harassing Lightbreather on-wiki and off-wiki have regularly been expunged. Therefore, an exception should be made to Lightbreather's sanctions affording her a decent, reasonable, and adequate opportunity to respond to these sustained on-wiki comments and aspersions. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter and Fæ: Are you arguing that female editor Lightbreather needs to ask for equal treatment when male editor Corbett didn't have to ask for the exception that seems to be being made, and the male on-wiki sexual harasser didn't have to ask for suppression of criticism and comments? Do some editors receive such grace as a matter of course, while others must go hat in hand to beg for fair treatment? Are some of the animals here less equal than others? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: This is not a ban appeal. This is a request for consistent treatment, which would not have been necessary if Wikipedia had been willing to afford the same rights and protections that other editors enjoy. Being site-banned does not paint a target on Lightbreather and authorize free fire with no ability to return it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John Carter: How can you maintain that I have introduced concepts like "male" and "female" into a matter that already involved serious sexual harassment? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lightbreather[edit]

Statement by John Carter[edit]

This looks very much like a bit of a nonstarter to me. Lightbreather is currently not even able to edit her user talk page. That makes it extremely difficult for any statement by her to be presented anywhere, except, perhaps, by e-mail to the committee. That being the case, it would presumably be reasonable for her to e-mail the committee to request this herself. Also, honestly, it would be useful to know whether Lightbreather had any intention of returning, which, without a visible comment from her, is at best theoretical, at least to those of us who don't see the presumptive e-mail she might send. Lastly, she was site-banned in July of this year, and as per WP:UNBAN she might not be capable of even appealing that ban until next July. All that taken into account, even given the presumption of the best of intentions by the person making the request, this very much seems to me to be something that would require input which can't be made, at least visibly, here.

Having said all that, if there is a basis for believing this individual has allegations here she wishes to address, it might, maybe, be possible for the Wikipedia:Signpost to interview her, and maybe others, regarding the current brouhaha about the Atlantic article, which I am going to presume is the proximate subject of discussion here. In fact, I even suggested such coverage myself at Jimbo's talk page recently. John Carter (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to HW, I am saying nothing of the kind, I think a reading of my comment above would demonstrate that, and I rather strongly object to the presumption that I might be. And I find the introduction of "male" v. "female" arguments nothing less than appalling. Lightbreather, for better or worse, is sitebanned for a year. Eric is not. "Sitebanned" vs. "not sitebanned" is the more appropriate differentiation here. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In response to GoodDay below, Lightbreather had her ability to edit her own user talk page at the same time as the site ban was imposed. John Carter (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: you introduced them to this particular discussion, which honestly is about the lifting of a ban of a sitebanned editor, not about anything about men or women. And that editor was not banned because of any issues related to sexual abuse, but rather gross misconduct in the topic of gun control and still-private evidence of WP:OUTING, which is at best tangentially related to any issues of sexual abuse. By so doing, it could reasonably be seen that you are attempting to basically distract from the more central issue, about lifting a siteban implemented on the basis of gross misconduct, to a marginally related issue, that the individual involved is a woman. That woman has recently taken advantage of her ban by providing information for a rather embarrassingly bad article off-site. And you did it on the basis of that individual being subject to "innuendo, aspersions, derogatory comments and personal attacks in connection with the discussion of the recent block and unblock of Eric Corbett," seemingly ignoring that Eric Corbett has been subjected to outright lies in the same article, and her own history of OUTing others, which, honestly, are probably more important. The central issue is about the lifting of the siteban, not the gender of the person sitebanned. Having said that, I would support with some reluctance lifting the talk page ban, with perhaps the understanding that if the individual in question abuses the privilege of editing that page that doing so will almost certainly be considered a factor in any appeals to lift the broader siteban. John Carter (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fæ[edit]

This amendment would only be relevant if Lightbreather has written to Arbcom expressing an interest in correcting the record and/or expressing a viewpoint from their experience.

Though it may be felt that Lightbreather is free to email Arbcom with any issue, at the same time is easy to understand why this would not be a realistic process to follow to have corrections or commentary posted on-wiki. Should Arbcom be minded to accept this, I recommend the parties consider taking advantage of a trusted interlocutor, perhaps an interested Arbcom member. This would reduce the chances of a "misspeaking" moment resulting in iterations of further controversy. --Fæ (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HW, I have made no statement on whether there is equal treatment on our projects, in fact I would not be comfortable expressing my uncensored views in this place... My comments are limited to the request made above and are based on my experience of relying on an interlocutor when being part of an Arbcom case. --Fæ (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade:, in the light of the information from @Elvey: below, would you revisit your opinion? To avoid confusion, it would be sensible if Arbcom publicly stated whether an email request to the committee was received from Lightbreather. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

Having gone through a 1-year siteban, I believe (or remember) one is only allowed to post on one's own talkpage & only then, about one's siteban. AFAIK, Eric Corbett is not sitebanned & so there's a difference. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to JC, I recommend that LB's talkpage privillages be restored. Although again, as I understand it, LB would be limited there to discussing her siteban. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question for HW - Are you making this request per Lightbreather's wishes & consent? GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend arbitrators reject this request. It appears the request hasn't been made via proxy & the requesting editor seems to have abandoned it. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This post at Lighbreather's talkpage doesn't quite make sense to me. I can't tell if HW's is getting consent from LB to make this request or not. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]

In light of many comments that have been made on wiki in recent days, this is an obvious and necessary step; I am ashamed that I did not propose it sooner and thank the proposer for realizing its urgent necessity. Many editors assert that this right of reply is a matter of Wikipedia custom or one of human decency; until and unless ArbCom definitively refutes those contentions, this is demanded by fairness and equity. It is imperative, moreover, that this motion be granted promptly, in light of active discussion in the case request, Signpost, and elsewhere; fairness delayed in this case would indeed be fairness denied.

The motion should not merely permit LightBreather to participate but should actively invite her participation and offer the committee's assistance, as needed, to facilitate this. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some commenters here and in the Case Requests page have denounced Lightbreather and @GorillaWarfare: for granting an interview to The Atlantic, claiming that Wikipedians should not give interviews about Wikipedia. Before sanctioning Lightbreather for doing this, ArbCom would have to sanction itself, since it not only granted an interview but actually distributed a press announcement during the Gamergate case. Wikipedia is not Fight Club: the first rule of Wikipedia is not that editors may not talk about Wikipedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of repeated calls to censure Lightbreather for granting an interview to The Atlantic, which constitute a large portion of the so-called evidence in this motion -- I believe we require an affirmative ruling from ArbCom indicating whether or not Wikipedians may be punished for discussing Wikipedia in books, newspapers, or journals. Otherwise, Wikipedians (and outside observers) reading the evidence will conclude that commenting on Wikipedia to the press will be punished by its arbitration committee, especially if the committee or foundation dislikes the way those comments are used. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: @Euryalus: With regard to "why anyone thinks [it] is a possibility" that someone would be censured for granting an interview, see "evidence" sections above by Rich Farmbrough and Mangoe, and statements in what we're now calling Arbitration Enforcement 2 [11] Case Request phase by Black Kite and many others. Clearing this up unambiguously is clearly desirable, lest the many calls to censure LB and GorillaWarfare in this matter be taken by the general public to reflect the community’s position or Arbcom’s acquiescence. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite[edit]

It would be simply unkind to refuse Lightbreather the courtesy of being able to gravedance on-wiki at the time of her figurative execution of her arch-nemesis. Anything that can be done to liven the festivities by rolling back editing restrictions upon her or any other banned editors should be done most expeditiously. This is a fantastic idea and hopefully a lasting precedent for future ArbCom circuses... Carrite (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangoe[edit]

Lightbreather has been plenty free with responses in the comments on the Atlantic article, so I don't see why we have to reopen a venue just for that. And as far as I can see (not wanting to read everything from the old case) this is pretty much an invitation to bring the dramafest from Disqus over to here. We are here to write a reference work, not to provide a forum for these discussions. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough (LB)[edit]

While I would welcome Lightbreather back to editing, I have concerns that they have been unable to drop the stick.

Lightbreather is solely their Wikipedia identity and they have left the project several times (as well as - and before - being banned) claiming to be here only for the sake of the the ArbCom case.

However they have continued the dispute off-wiki through a dedicated website and Twitter account. Enablers on-wiki have assisted promulgation of inaccurate narrative, in support of doubtless worthy goals.

This is not, historically, a new tactic - however it is one that is abhorrent to most encyclopaedists. Truth may be the first casualty in war, but if it is a casualty in building this encyclopaedia, we loose all credibility and may as well put fire sale signs on the servers.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Elvey[edit]

But User:Fæ, User:Seraphimblade, User:Thryduulf: Erm... Lightbreather DID email arbcom on Oct 27.--Elvey(t•c) 23:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fæ, thanks for pinging. User:Seraphimblade, User:Thryduulf: can you please provide, in the interests of transparency, a reason for your votes that don't rely on apparently false information? Seraphimblade, you wrote, This has not, in any way to my knowledge, been requested by Lightbreather. It would seem appropriate to check your inbox(es) and strike that claim unless you have reason to believe Lightbreather did not send what she said she sent. Retracting your claim does not require disclosing the content private email. FYI I don't have a dog in this fight, I just find this behavior odd and needing light. Addendum: It sounds like "site ban may be appealed no less than one year after it was placed" would be a valid reason - well, unless that was applicable but ignored in the case of Eric Corbett; I haven't looked. Anyone? --Elvey(t•c) 20:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply User:Thryduulf. I feel I understand where you and arbcom were coming from now; the decision y'all made makes sense now. Confidence gained; concerns addressed. Seems safe to assume Seraphimblade's statement merely quickly became out of date and remained so, but was correct when made.--Elvey(t•c) 22:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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

Lightbreather: Clerk notes[edit]

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

Lightbreather: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • Decline. This has not, in any way to my knowledge, been requested by Lightbreather, and we don't consider third-party ban appeals. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • For reference, while I will not disclose the contents of any private email, the site ban stated that it may be appealed no less than one year after it was placed, which would be 17 July 2016. At that time, and not before, an appeal could be considered if it were made by Lightbreather. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse, as this is directly related to the Eric Corbett discussions from which I am also recusing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per Seraphimblade. Also, GoodDay is correct when he says that the only reason a blocked or banned editor may edit their talk page is to seek clarification of or appeal their block/ban. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarkBernstein:. Arbcom has not, and is not proposing to, sanction Lightbreather for giving an interview. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @MarkBernstein: It's no different to a self-published source - if they out or harass another Wikipedia editor then obviously sanctions, up to and including a ban, will be considered. If they merely express an opinion, however controversial or unpopular, then there will not be a reason to consider sanctions. In all cases though the full circumstances will be considered, and nobody is going to get sanctioned because someone else misquoted them for example (although if the misquoting is deliberately intended to harass, the person doing the misquoting may themselves face sanction). To be explicit about the case in hand: Nobody will be sanctioned for what they said in this piece in The Atlantic. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Tangentially related but worth saying here in case it comes up, a Wikipedia editor should not quote themselves in a content namespace (no matter their expertise or the reliability of the source) without discussing it first on the talk page (or centralised discussion space if appropriate). Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elvey: Lightbreather's email post-dates the opening of this amendment request and is explicitly in reaction to it. She did not ask for anything as extensive as Hullaboo did, and the implication is she hadn't planned on asking until she saw this request. The difference between this and the Eric Corbett case is that (a) this is a third party appeal; (b) Lightbreather is site banned, Eric was only topic banned; (c) Eric was not given a minimum time before he could appeal his topic ban (as I recall, I haven't double checked), Lightbreather was. (PS: your first ping did not work for me, I don't know why). Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline - talkpage access is only restored under certain circumstances, and offering evidence in case pages related to other editors is not one of them. If anyone (including banned editors) want to send evidence to the committee via email on any current case relevant to them, they can do so. Separately, anyone who uses case pages to engage in personal abuse of other editors is likely to be sanctioned for it. And +1 to Thryduulf's second comment above - to the extent that this was a genuine query, there is not the faintest prospect of an arbcom sanction for anyone who offered their opinions in the Atlantic article. I really struggle to see why anyone thinks this is a possibility. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MarkBernstein: Hopefully the responses in this section help address the concern. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be prepared to reopen the question of modifying their sanction. Asa reminder, the vote for banning her was 8-4, not 12-0 or 13-0 as for most other votes in that case. I was in the majority, but due to more recent private information to the committee, I'd now support modification or even withdrawal of the site ban. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. Euryalus puts it well. Doug Weller (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: Lightbreather (January 2019)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Hell in a Bucket at 18:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Lightbreather arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Remove Iban sanction.

Statement by Hell in a Bucket[edit]

I was put into an I-ban with a banned user some years ago [[12]]. This ended up with the other user being site banned and to my knowledge they have not returned and will not. I'd like to take ownership for my part in escalating that case. My intentions were good, they were based on what I viewed as the best for our encyclopedia. I do with the benefit of hindsight see that while that users behavior was inappropriate in many things legitimate harassment did end up happening to her and taken on the whole it would be pretty overwhelming for anyone. I think in the end every single editor walked away being dirty and not clean even those who had nothing to do with the actions that lead to other site bans. I took a wikibreak (technically retired a while) and that did the trick of helping me completely disengage not only from that but the entire Dramah Boardz in general. I was completing a few degrees and I had reason to take a class on gender and the psychology surrounding it and I can only express my regret on my ignorance of how pervasive gender bias can be. I learned that while I do not have a hardcore sexist view I would fall into a benevolent sexism. I mention that because in self reflection I realize how big of an issue it can be and why all editors here should work to make this a gender neutral platform. I intend to support that in whatever way I can while at the same time avoiding contentious debates. I do not see much use in an active sanction anymore when I've shown that for years I can leave the site and I have well and truly dropped that stick. Many many people tried to explain to me some of the above but because of my level of engagement I didn't see that. I will voluntarily not engage that user if she should ever come back and I would also make the following commitment. Lightbreather as I understood it mostly took issue with me calling out the sockpuppetry , calling her a liar and general willingness to be call out repeatedly confront what I percieved to be problems rather then walk away even in situations I was not involved directly. I understand these actions helped make the problem worse. I will not look for that user, I will not interact with them if I suspect sockpuppetry nor file public reports (let me be clear that would be an extra-ordinary thing and would have to be in my face, on my page otherwise with little to no edit overlap I doubt I'd ever come into contact with that user again). I would send a private message to an arbitrator to have them address that situation. I don't even have plans to rehash the incident here on wiki with anyone, it's done. I wasn't perfect, I've learned and attempted to make the best out of a situation that will help me grow as a person and editor here. Lastly I apologize to those editors that may have believed I was doing this purely based on a person gender, that to me was not my intention and I will work very hard to make sure no one on this site will ever think or have reason to think differently.

@User:GRuban it would prohibit me from a fresh start and yes it can be used as a weapon too against me. I am not looking for a fresh start, my record is what it is warts and all, but if ever I should want one it would be sockpuppetry if I did and it would at least help rehabilitate my record a little. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @User:SilkTork, a few small thoughts. Lightbreather, I believe, would avoid me like the plague and she most likely has strong feelings towards anyone involved in that scenario (justifiably). Much of that would be completely reasonable due to the nature of the off wiki harrassment she received and that the anonymous nature of editing could leave her and others to speculate who was involved and how. I think one thing everyone can agree about is there was a lot of off wiki conversations about this situation. Everyone lost, every single editor and my voluntary nature to abstain is because I have waded into the gender wars and I lost badly, the cost of part of my reputation is not something I wish to go through again. People start losing their minds, same thing with the various AN, ANI, Jimbo page etc. It is my intention to avoid places like this just to avoid the stress and ensuing bullshit. My area that I am versed in somewhat is new articles patrol, deletions, recent changes and short stub creations. If I stay in those places it is much more rewarding and usually more cut and dry. My involvement with this case started on an ANI thread. The reason why I disagree with your assertion is because I actually notified large portions of that original discussion as well see [[13]]. One suggestion I could make is adopting a motion for discretionary sanctions for this case. This would allow administrators the power to use limited discretionary sanctions and provide a snap back for anyone involved including myself. It is my understanding to remove discretionary sanctions the sanctioning admin must vacate or they must be appealed to the committee and this was a little more in line with the proposed decision that arbcom be the final decision there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Banedon, i don't think the answer is nothing. I want community recognition not only that I have acknowledged my part in this but I also want to make it clear that I learned something invaluable in the process. If there is one thing I can say positive about this situation is that it did make me look at things a little more critically in terms of gender, things I had not been cognizant before. If maintaining the status quo is maintaining a cloud over my editing I'm not sure how long I should remain under that cloud and at what point I can reasonably ask for it to be lifted. I do recall an offer of mentorship for LB prior to the site ban but a portion of that decision was a gun control restriction which ultimately was a deal breaker for her. My own interests are as I laid out to SilkTork and if I was somehow sidelined from them I would find it difficult to want to come back too. I don't recall precisely the issues with her editws that lead to that, gun control is not an area I am versed in so I couldn't say if it was bad or not. You'd have to read the arbcom case and make your own educated decision. The question I asked myself prior to filing this is how long should I wait? I'm not sure there is a answer to that. I've had a beer or two so apologies if I ramnled. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lightbreather[edit]

Statement by GRuban[edit]

So we've got two possibilities: (1) Lightbreather stays away, so removing this sanction does nothing. (2) Lightbreather returns, at which point we have to ask why we removed this sanction without even asking her opinion.

Why don't we leave this up, and should L return, ask her how she feels about it? --GRuban (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses, folks. RFA-wise, honestly, is there that much difference in terms of black mark from "I have an IBan but the person whom it is with isn't here any more" to "I had an IBan, but it was vacated because the person whom it was with isn't here any more"? In either case the important part is "yes, I messed up, but I understand why, and I'm not doing it any more" - and frankly, sometimes that's even better than "I've never messed up", shows humanity. But I like TParis's suggestion. Suggestions; both of them, actually. I'd be happy if we were to give both HiaB and Lb a second chance, if they understood what the issues were; it has been a while. --GRuban (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Bellezzasolo[edit]

@GRuban: I think most editors consider an IBAN as a mark against another editor's record. If Hell in a Bucket went for an RfA, this would come up as a significant black mark, and I dare say there are other venues that I can't think of. If both editors are active, then the ban can be appealed, and, if accepted, this will show up on relevant logs. Furthermore, sanctions are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. This IBAN is serving no further purpose. Admittedly, repealing it serves no effective purpose, but it may serve a purpose in the future. I don't see any reason to prevent editors from appealing IBANs when the other party has behaved in such a problematic manner that they've been sitebanned. All this means is that editors who are more likely to have been goaded into a conflict have no way to "get their record expunged". ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TParis[edit]

I am still in contact with Lightbreather. If Arbcom is requesting a statement from her, I could ask. It might also be a good time to review her site ban as well and possible vacate it. It's been years since this case, both editors have had time away.--v/r - TP 18:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beeblebrox[edit]

Vacate the iban. Both parties have atrocious block logs (although most of Hell's blocks are quite old), and both of them violated the ban at least once, but the request here is eminently reasonable and seems to reflect some real introspection into why this was needed and why their own behavior was not acceptable. (I would also say that as far as I can recall I've never seen such a request where an opinion from a banned user was solicited, and whether Lightbreather's ban remains in place is an entirely seperate issue and her opinion on this is not necessary to come to a decision) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Euryalus[edit]

As a drafter of the Lightbreather case, support the proposal to vacate this iban - was necessary at the time and is redundant now. Separately, seems reasonable to review Lightbreather's siteban if it turns out that they're interested in coming back. But understandable if they have better things to do given the deeply unpleasant offwiki harassment they experienced at the time. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sitush[edit]

No particular thoughts for or against the request, which is one that I could equally propose in relation to an old IBAN that lies against me where the other party has also gone. However, regarding the point that TParis makes, I think Lightbreather is still pursuing the same agenda off-wiki as got her into trouble on-wiki, so suggesting that her situation be revisited is probably not going to be helpful. Unless, of course, the blogs, social media etc I am thinking off are not in fact her but some sort of impersonator. I'm not linking to them so please don't ask. - Sitush (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish[edit]

Tend to agree with Euryalus and the requester. In more detail, an extant I-ban implies there is an ongoing problem to prevent, but there is not. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and all that. If a restriction no longer serves a purpose it should be vacated, since we all know these things have a Scarlet Letter effect.

I also agree with TParis's suggestion that LB should be asked directly to comment, and that whether restrictions against that editor need to be retained at this stage at all is worth examining. Remedies are supposed to be preventative not punitive. If LB were to return and re-engage in the same disruptive behaviors, then another site-ban would likely ensue on the double, so this seems very low-risk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz[edit]

The Lightbreather fiasco probably marks the nadir of the recent Arbitration Committee regimes, where a committee majority actually voted at one point to direct women sexually harassed over their Wikipedia editing not to fight back.[14] One of the reasons given for site-banning Lightbreather was that she made off-wiki attempts to confirm the identity of the person who was engaging in sexually harassing her off-wiki.[15] She suspected a Wikipedia editor seh had an ongoing dispute with and was eventually proved correct. As I recall, some of the information off-wiki included a picture of the harasser he had posted himself to Wikipedia (to compare to a picture of himself the harasser had posted to his userpage on the sexsite involved in his off-wiki harassment). Lightbreather acted with considerable restraint: The harasser had posted his real-world identity to Wikipedia, and it was easy to track down information about his family , his job, and his membership in an organization quite important to him. She could easily have massively disrupted his personal life. She didn't. There appears yo be no evidence she did more than act to stop the harassment.

I'd also note that the harasser made efforts to turn up real-world identifying information about me, and implicitly tried to enlist other users to help, made off-wiki communications prompting a porn performer to make legal threats against me, then posted links to the threats on Wikipedia, and made palpably dishonest and abusive comments about me and other users, yet nothing was done to him for such behaviour -- until he went far beyond the pale in his attacks on Lightbreather. Even now, although he's been been WMF-banned, his confirmed identity as Lightbreather's principal harasser hasn't been reported here.

ArbComm ought to vacate the entire Lightbreather decision, except for the sanctions against Lightbreather's offwiki harassers, and institutionally apologize both to Lightbreather and to the community for its misguided actions. Removing a "cloud" from users tainted by aa horrifically flawed a decision as this should not be so selectively as to further demean the editor most unfairly treated by it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Banedon[edit]

As long as Lightbreather remains site-banned, this request seems pointless to me. I'd ask Hell in a Bucket this question: as long as Lightbreather remains site-banned, what is there to gain from this interaction ban revoked, or what is lost by having this interaction ban in place? If the answer is "nothing", why change the status quo? We can worry about this if and when Lightbreather is unbanned; until then this might as well stay in place. Banedon (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: I don't understand I'm afraid. If you're after forgiveness, that's not something the community can decide as a whole; it must come down to each individual person. For example in this case, the six editors who've signed that message of support for Ryulong are not going to view his editing as under a cloud, even though Arbcom sanctions remain in place. If you want to publicly acknowledge your role in this, you could e.g. make a statement on your user page. I still don't see the point of this request unless Lightbreather is unbanned, and again, we can worry about lifting the interaction ban if and when that happens. Banedon (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Newyorkbrad[edit]

Semantic note only. To the arbitrators, the best word to use for “the sanction was good at the time but we’re ending it now” is probably “terminated.” Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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

Lightbreather: Clerk notes[edit]

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

Lightbreather: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • I'd like to hear from other community members, but generally I'm minded to accept this request. Self reflection is difficult but it is the best way to move forward and this comment by Hell in a Bucket ticks all the boxes that I'd like to see in this sort of appeal. WormTT(talk) 16:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I was thinking the same as WTT here. Another factor is the siteban itself on Lightbreather. Unless that was overturned, there wouldn't be any interaction with Hell in a Bucket and Lightbreather. The fact they recognize the issue is admirable, and as the user in question is gone, the need for an IBAN doesn't seem as prominent. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to add, if LB wished to come back, that discussion needs to be held separate from this. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am fine with vacating the restriction. AGK ■ 17:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per colleagues, I would prefer to solely deal with HiaB's restriction. If Lightbreather wished to appeal their sanction (there is no indication that is the case), I'd like to deal with that separately. AGK ■ 11:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems reasonable to me. I don't think we need to bother Lightbreather by dragging her back into an issue she can't respond to on equal footing; we can sort that out if and when Lightbreather appeals her own sanctions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a reasonable request: the sanction is now redundant so there's no need to keep Hell in a Bucket under a cloud. – Joe (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Worm. Good to see. Katietalk 15:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect Hell in a Bucket's reflection on what occurred, and their own role in it. My qualms here are that this was a community i-ban ([16]) that ArbCom took over ([17]) to maintain some control of the situation if Lightbreather returned. So there are two aspects of this that I feel need consideration.
1) If we are thinking that this i-ban is no longer relevant, then we should create a motion to return all the Lightbreather community i-bans to the community. Either the bans are relevant to ArbCom or they are not, and if they are not, then the community should take back control and decide what to do with them. My feeling on that is the original reason for ArbCom taking over the i-bans is still in play - if Lightbreather does return, it is useful to have the restrictions in place to limit the potential for disruption to the project and the community. The time to decide if the restrictions should be lifted is after Lightbreather has returned, not before.
2) If we are thinking that this particular i-ban is different to the others because Hell in a Bucket has written to us showing understanding of what has occurred, then we need to consider the terms of the lifting of the i-ban. The wording is such that Hell in a Bucket appears to want the two-way ban lifted, but wishes to impose restrictions on himself which makes lifting the i-ban symbolic rather than actual. If we are to keep the i-ban within ArbCom, and accede to Hell in a Bucket's request, then it might be better to not lift the i-ban, but to convert it into a one-way ban (Lightbreather restricted from interacting with Hell in a Bucket) in order to minimise potential problems if Lightbreather does return.
My feeling on this, after reflection, is that we don't know if Lightbreather will return, and until she does there is no meaningful restriction in place. But if she does return, then it might be useful to keep all ArbCom restrictions in place, and remove them then, as appropriate - returning the i-bans to the community rather than lifting them. If what Hell in a Bucket wants is a symbolic lifting of the i-ban, in a sense a public acknowledgement that he has moved on, then we can note that, so the community can see and respect his new understanding, yet keep the restrictions appropriately in place. SilkTork (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts Hell in a Bucket. My hesitations are not to do with your side of things - you have shown exactly the sort of understanding of your behaviour that the community, admins, and ArbCom like to see, and which tends to result in the lifting of any sanctions. Indeed, the thoughts expressed by the Committee here reflect that. My qualms are to do with a) ArbCom's role in this, and b) the impact on the restrictions put in place by ArbCom for if Lightbreather returns. If you were asking for any individual sanctions on yourself to be lifted that were within ArbCom's remit to lift, there would be no hesitation at all. And because the i-ban actually does not impact you at all because the other party is not here to interact with, I'm hesitant to simply say yes without thinking about the implications of this. The realistic way the i-ban impacts you is in the sense that it prevents you being clearly understood as an "editor in good standing", which is why I felt a notice saying you were cleared of the negative connotation of the ban might be considered.
ArbCom's role in your i-ban (and that of the others) was simply to take over existing community bans to ensure a controlled return to Wikipedia if Lightbreather returned. As far as I can see, what has changed in that regard is a belief that Lightbreather will not return, and a space of time. If the space of time, along with people's assertions, is considered enough to indicate that Lightbreather will not return, then ALL the i-bans that ArbCom took over can be returned to the community; or, if the Committee felt bold enough, lifted. Personally I would prefer the community to lift community restrictions - I would like to see ArbCom reduce its authority as much as possible, and where the community can deal with matters then the community should. So that's my thinking on that. It's not denying your appeal, but returning it to the proper place.
The other aspect is the impact that lifting your i-ban with Lightbreather would have on Lightbreather should she return. It was considered at the time to be significant enough for ArbCom to take over the i-ban. If it is felt that Lightbreather will not return, then we are back at ArbCom returning all the i-bans to the community; but if it is felt that she might return, then giving some pause to reflect on the implications of that would useful. The implications are: if Lightbreather is to be accepted back into the community it would be after an appeal similar to yours in which she showed enough understanding of her behaviour to indicate that such i-bans wouldn't be needed. So, my preference in all this would be to return all the i-bans to the community on the understanding that enough time has passed for none of the i-bans to be appropriate to continue to be under ArbCom control. SilkTork (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support lifting the two-way IBAN per Euryalus and others. This would effectively remove it for Lightbreather as well and should she decide to return to editing, the issue can be raised then and there, and should it become a problem, the community has the ability to deal with it. ArbCom as a last resort. Mkdw talk 21:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per OR, I'm ok with vacating this restriction. I agree there's no need to drag LB into it when she's still site-banned - a bit like rubbing salt in the wound, in my opinion. I'm open to revisiting the need for the IBAN in the future if LB successfully appeals and if it's felt to be necessary again at that point, but let's cross that bridge when we come to it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think lifting this IBAN is reasonable. I also agree that any revisitation of Lightbreather's sanctions should be done separately, and only if we have some indication from Lightbreather that they wish to return. I don't agree with SilkTork that this should be returned to the community for consideration—partly because we took over the sanction, and partly because HiaB already took this to the community and was redirected here. I'd rather not punt him right back to the community after several days of deliberation here (with some input from the community already). GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KrakatoaKatie: I'm not voting on this because I don't currently have the time to get stuck in and figure out what's going on, but do you have any objection with using "rescinded" instead of "vacated"? "Vacated" has a flavor of the original sanction being overturned as invalid or otherwise annulled (e.g. vacated judgement) rather than the sanction being lifted as simply no longer needed. I'm probably nitpicking, but "rescinded" has a more neutral connotation, I think. ~ Rob13Talk 05:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather: Motion[edit]

The interaction ban between Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) and Lightbreather (talk · contribs) enacted taken over in the Lightbreather case is vacated rescinded.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 19:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. I don't feel further language is necessary, but as always, feel free to make it more elegant. Katietalk 01:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed 'vacated' to 'rescinded' per Rob's suggestion. Elegance, y'all. ;-) Katietalk 17:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sounds good to me. Indifferent to whether the verb is vacated, rescinded, terminated, lifted, removed, crumpled up and tossed in the bin, etc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support the removal, unconcerned about the specific word used. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I do support the removal. Mildly concerned that the motion states that it was enacted in the case - it was already in place prior to the case. If someone wants to make a change regarding that, I'd support it, but my primary opinion is that the interaction ban should be removed and therefore I support the motion as it stands. WormTT(talk) 09:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. For all my quibbles I do support this. I'd like us to also consider returning the other i-bans to the community; given that we feel this one is no longer relevant, that should also apply to the others. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Note: I have replaced "enacted" with "taken over". SilkTork (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 15:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This works for me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mkdw talk 03:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. AGK ■ 17:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose


Abstain
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Motion: Lightbreather unban (July 2020)[edit]

Original discussion
Following a request to the committee and community consultation, a motion to unban Lightbreather (talk · contribs) has been closed as unsuccessful. Lightbreather may file another appeal to the committee in six months' time. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Lightbreather (talk · contribs) is unbanned. The following remedies of the Lightbreather arbitration case are rescinded:

Lightbreather's topic ban from edits relating to gun control (4.3.2) remains in force. She may appeal this restriction in no less than six months.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
Proposed, and noting that in her appeal Lightbreather confirmed she would be staying away from Gun Control articles, so there is no need to remove the topic ban. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per WTT. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Moving to oppose due to the community concerns expressed below, as well as offwiki evidence of continued hostility toward other editors. I am no longer convinced Lightbreather has changed her approach sufficiently to be allowed back into the community, and unbanning at this time would be a mistake. – bradv🍁 19:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think we are on the brink of making a mistake here, per my reasoning below. Going back through the appeal, the original arbcom case, LB's block log, and material off-wiki, it paints a picture of someone who puts their own agenda ahead of Wikipedia's best interest at all times and shows a pattern of blind obsessiveness that may have abated somewhat in the intervening years but is not gone altogether. I believe knowing of the awful harassment they were previously subject to may have made us more sympathetic than was warranted. We can and should abhor the harassment, but it doesn't excuse the other behaviors. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per off-wiki evidence and the contents of the unblock request. Please consider me opposed to the rest of the motions. Maxim(talk) 20:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. on the basis of the off-wiki evidence we have received, this is a continuing problem. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. yes this is nonviable based on off-wiki exchanges Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A shame, as I do believe Lightbreather is in a better position than she was 5 years ago and would be able to return. However, I'm not happy with the off-wiki evidence either and cannot support a return at present. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Procedurally, as I have moved to close with the view that this cannot pass. –xenotalk 15:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per all the above. Katietalk 17:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain / Recuse
  • Striking my support for an unban for the moment. The concerns brought by the community need to be considered before we make a final decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC) moved to oppose. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional vote on rescinded restrictions[edit]

Clerks, please add each of the following passing bullet points to the list of rescinded restrictions in the final motion, should it be successful.

  • one account restriction (4.3.3)
Support
  1. I do not see this as a legitimate concern. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Lightbreather does not have a pattern of sockpuppetry that would require this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For clarity, a "support" vote on these restrictions means support for lifting them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There hasn't been any sockpuppetry in five years, as far as we're aware. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per all the above Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If she was going to sock, she'd have done it by now. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain / Recuse
  • one revert restriction (4.3.4)
Support
  1. I support lifting the restriction. It would have been quite reasonable as an alternative to the site-ban that was passed, but I do not believe it is necessary five years later. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think this will be necessary with the gun control TBAN in place. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not aware of any issues of edit warring outside of the gun control topic area, and even those are 5 years old. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. - an admin needn't wait for 3 reverts to determine that edit-warring is problematic, hence I trust that any infractions that skirt but not transgress 3RR will be viewed with past history and current circumstances in mind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I would prefer this remains in place for the time being on the understanding that if Lightbreather returns to editing productively, it can be removed in 6 months. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Worm That Turned. After six months of editing I'd be happy to look at lifting this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although I support lifting the ban, changed my vote on that.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC) there was good reason for it at the time, and I'd prefer to leave this particular restriction in place for now, per the above comments would be happy to reconsider in six months. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'd rather come back to this after six months of productive editing. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think considering the six months from now would be a reasonable way to proceed DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain / Recuse
  • Reverse topic ban (4.3.5)
Support
  1. I do not believe this is a "good" restriction. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I only supported this in the original case because I thought it could be an alternative to a full siteban. Now that Lightbreather has spent five years away from the project I don't think such a harsh restriction will be helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per WTT and GW. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This was an interesting idea, but we really have no precedent for this kind of complex restriction, and this seems a poor time to try it out. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Not a fan of this type of tailored restriction. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Affirming that regardless of the site ban, I would still favor lifting this as it's absurd. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per GW. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I, along, with all the other arbs, voted for it at the time, but it was not a good idea. We shouldn't do anything this complicated. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain / Recuse
Split out interaction bans below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Interaction bans which have been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)
Support
  1. Partial support. Three of the four interaction bans are with editors who have left the project, each under very different circumstances (one globally banned, one locally banned, one retired). I do not think it is necessary to keep those interaction bans on the books. The fourth is with a still-active editor and it probably makes sense to leave that one alone at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. as with NYB, there's no point in these when they are with people who have left. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I am hesitant to remove interaction bans in any circumstances, as I do not consider them stigmatised sanctions, but rather an acceptance that two people cannot get along. I am aware that there are 1-way interaction bans, which I am less happy about, but I would hope that Lightbreather might consider appealing these separately at ARCA in the future. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Can be looked at later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain / Recuse
  • One way Interaction ban with Mike Searson which has been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)
Support
Oppose
  1. I am hesitant to remove interaction bans in any circumstances, as I do not consider them stigmatised sanctions, but rather an acceptance that two people cannot get along. I am aware that there are 1-way interaction bans, which I am less happy about, but I would hope that Lightbreather might consider appealing these separately at ARCA in the future. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a one-way interaction ban from Mike Searson interacting with Lightbreather. As I mention below I'm not a big fan of one-way IBANs, but I also see no reason to lift this unless Mike Searson requests it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mike Searson has been retired for over a year in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Unless Mike Searson tells us otherwise. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mike Searson would need to appeal this. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per all the above. If and when Mike returns to editing they can ask for this to be lifted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Katietalk 17:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain / Recuse
  • Interaction ban with Eric Corbett which has been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)
Support
  1. Eric Corbett is currently banned, and I don't feel comfortable discussing him in his absence, beyond saying that an interaction ban with someone no longer here is largely moot. If Eric were to return, we can address this issue at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As EC is currently banned and the chances of him returning seem slim. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I am hesitant to remove interaction bans in any circumstances, as I do not consider them stigmatised sanctions, but rather an acceptance that two people cannot get along. I am aware that there are 1-way interaction bans, which I am less happy about, but I would hope that Lightbreather might consider appealing these separately at ARCA in the future. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain / Recuse
  1. Recuse. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Abstain. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One-way Interaction ban with Sitush which has been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)
Support
  1. I'm generally not a fan of one-way interaction bans so would like to try lifting this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per GW. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I am hesitant to remove interaction bans in any circumstances, as I do not consider them stigmatised sanctions, but rather an acceptance that two people cannot get along. I am aware that there are 1-way interaction bans, which I am less happy about, but I would hope that Lightbreather might consider appealing these separately at ARCA in the future. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unless Sitush tells us otherwise. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If the unban passes, I'm now convinced this should remain in effect. (Still evaluating re other issues.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain / Recuse
Removing this would probably be harmless at this point, but unlike the others users mentioned in this section, Sitush is still an active editor, so holding off pending any comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'd like to hear from Sitush first. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per Katie Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interaction ban with Scalhotrod which has been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)
Support
  1. Given the behaviour of Scalhotrod leading to his global ban, I am willing to remove the this. WormTT(talk) 15:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, given that Scalhotrod has been globally banned and this seems unneeded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. rather moot given the global ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As above. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain / Recuse

Lightbreather unban: Motion to close[edit]

These motions should be closed 24 hours after 4 net votes in support of closing.

Draft wording for notice:

Following a request to the committee and community consultation, a motion to unban Lightbreather (talk · contribs) has been closed as unsuccessful. Lightbreather may file another appeal to the committee in six months' time.

Support
  1. While I haven't sufficiently read-in to this to responsibly opine above, I can see this motion cannot move forward at this time given the additional information provided to the committee. –xenotalk 13:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – bradv🍁 15:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 21:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A formal change of vote above would feel like piling on at this point, but this is clearly the outcome. I copyedited the second sentence of the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Discussion by arbitrators[edit]

  • Lightbreather has come to the committee requesting to return to editing. As this was a full arbitration case, there should be a public motion to rescind the site ban. In discussion, some arbitrators felt that there were too many restrictions left upon Lightbreather given the passage of time, and so we decided to look at these at the same time. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just copyedited slightly to make it clear that the additional items are existing restrictions we're considering rescinding, not additional restrictions we're considering imposing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could the interaction bans be considered separately now? I would like to recuse from one party but vote on the others if possible. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've split out the Interaction bans. Newyorkbrad are you ok to vote again separately. WormTT(talk) 15:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pudeo: I'm not sure I've parsed your comment correctly so I'll respond to both possible interpretations: If you're saying LB didn't retire, but rather was banned, that's arguable but I'd note that post was made 15 days before the ban was enacted and it was in fact her last edit outside of the arbcom case that was ongoing at that time. If what you are saying is that it's flatly untrue that she was the subject of sexual harassment, I can assure that she most certainly was. It was off-wiki. Ask anyone who was on the functionaries team or arbcom around the time of her ban, we all saw it. It was pretty awful. That doesn't excuse her behavior on-wiki, which is why she was still banned, but it did happen, and was one of the FoF in the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ealdgyth: We did have significant discussion of this on our mailing list, both amongst ourselves and dialogue with Lightbreather, before this motion was posted. And I for one am very aware of how disruptive LB was in the past, as I'm sure other arbs are as well. So it is safe to say that we had considered our positions before this motion was posted. That being said, this isn't just a formality. I'm willing to reconsider my vote if something compelling is brought into the discussion. But I also wrote WP:ROPE and am a big fan of second chances for those who seem sincere in their desire not to repeat their past mistakes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: LB has discussed the other restrictions with us, and that's why we're voting on them here instead of simply unblocking and leaving them all in place. Katietalk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ealdgyth: I suspect that if any problems are to recur, they will be obvious and able to be dealt with promptly without a huge deal of fuss. Hence I felt it was worth a second chance after five years. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been looking a little deeper here and I think we've made an error here. Sure, some of those additional restrictions may seem un-needed now, but we should probably have thought a bit more about how somebody winds up with eight different restrictions on their account, and how they managed to get blocked three times during an arbcom case about their behavior. I'm also concerned about the offsite activity, which seems to reflect an obsessive attitude. These aren't issues that are going to be resolved by a topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting here that I view all the "additional" motions as amendments to the main motion, so if the main motion fails the amendments fail too. If that's not the way we're doing this we should probably clarify that before getting to the closing stage. – bradv🍁 20:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Bradv: I agree with your interpretation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As do I. These were designed as modifications of the motion. If arbs want other parts removed, then they should do so by separate and specific motion. Not that I see the point while the site ban is in place. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I read them as riders requiring an unban to be effective. –xenotalk 12:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (I've made that explicit)[reply]

Community discussion[edit]

All users – not just committee members – are welcome to comment here.
  • Noticed the AN notification. What is there to discuss? The unblock motion itself has already almost passed without any community input, and the ArbCom has not shed any light as to what the appeal included. There is no way to examine or comment on it. I suppose it isn't such a big deal if the gun control topic ban stays, but you should remember that Lightbreather was also a part of the Gender Gap Task Force ArbCom case, although wasn't named as a party for some reason, despite playing a prominent role around the issue. Also, there was a lengthy rejected ArbCom request called Civility in August 2014. The current statement on Lightbreather's userpage, "RETIRED DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT", is a flatly untrue WP:GRUDGE claim, which is a bit odd. So drama isn't, and won't be, restricted to just gun control. --Pudeo (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just re-read the whole #Findings of fact section in the designated case. The disruptive editing was extensive in so many ways that things rarely get that far. Well, the appeal must have been good, especially given the stance completely opposite to WP:NOTTHEM at the time. Apparently the timing of this appeal coincides with Lightbreather's first comment in years on an off-site Wikipedia criticism forum in a thread where her nemesis', Two kinds of pork's, new alias was allegedly uncovered. --Pudeo (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beeblebrox, thank you for your comments above. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pudeo, thanks for the strikethrough. This might also be a good opportunity to reflect on why your first instinct was to reflexively (and wrongly) claim that Lightbreather was lying about being sexually harassed, even though you didn't have the first clue what you were talking about. MastCell Talk 06:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the off-site sexual harassment was real, and more extensive than I remembered. But as Beeblebrox responded, there were two interpretations. Retiring after the evidence phase of an ArbCom case named after you, in which a mountain of evidence of wrong-doing was posted, isn't a real retirement. Especially from someone that had already retired twice[18][19]. That's more of a "you can't fire me, I quit" type of a thing with no self-reflection on own conduct. --Pudeo (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not exactly getting the impression that the committee is really going to listen to the input of the community, since it's well on the way to passing. I'd love to know what managed to sway folks to an unban given all the problems detailed in the #Findings of fact section of the decision, but ... again, this sure looks like a done deal. I have my doubts, but ... whatever. --Ealdgyth (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, well, color me not quite so sure that "if any problems are to recur, they will be obvious and able to be dealt with promptly without a huge deal of fuss". The "they will be obvious" part isn't the issue ... it's the "promptly without a huge deal of fuss" part that I'm disbelieving. And are the arbs going to be the ones enforcing that "promptly without a huge deal of fuss" or is it going to be left up to some poor soul like Karanacs to have to bring another ArbCom case just to get disruption dealt with? We'll leave aside the issue that the arbcom case was in mid-2015, and that pretty much is the end of Karanacs' active participation in Wikipedia? Are we going to lose other productive editors like Karanacs in the future just so some arbs can feel good about letting someone have a second chance? What's the cost? Will we lose Sitush next? Or Dennis again? --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five years is a long time, and while the original ban was justified, it may no longer serve a preventative purpose. If Lightbreather wishes to contribute positively and assures us that the conduct in the 2015 case will not recur, I would welcome her back. Given that it's already passed, I assume that assurance was given and is believable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lightbreather was a central player in some of the most contentious and divisive ArbCom cases leading up to the ban those years ago. Will the community be able to read the appeal to understand what has changed between now and then? Mr Ernie (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the appeal has convinced the Committee that the very extensive disruptive editing that resulted in the ban will not reoccur, and Lightbreather understands that (a) her editing will be closely scrutinised and (b) any disruption will almost certainly result in a swift (re-)imposition of sanctions (including a community ban) then I see no reason to deny the appeal. I'd rather the other restrictions remain in place until separately appealed though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @KrakatoaKatie: I understand why you are discussing them, but I would still rather see them all appealed publicly. There is nothing in the restrictions that would prevent her returning productively in the short term and only the reverse topic ban beyond that and with no restriction on when they may be appealed there seems to be no real benefit to not hearing the appeal publicly. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sitush: "May appeal in 6 months" will almost certainly be because "indefinite does not mean infinite". What sunk this appeal was apparently evidence that her attitude has not changed since the ban, so I'd suggest that if in the future (which may be six months, may be six years) she presents convincing evidence that she has changed then it is right that an appeal be considered. As this very page demonstrates an appeal being considered does not mean that it will be successful, but the comments suggest that given enough time and evidence of change, the community might accept her back with restrictions, so at this time declaring her block to be infinite does not seem to accord with the community's desire. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with yinz lifting the site ban, but I think the i-bans (With Eric, Sitush, and Mike), topic ban, and revert restriction should remain. The disruption that lead to her ban was extensive and widespread. I have little doubt that the community will enact the reverse topic ban if she goes back to testing the community's patience. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discouraging since Arb seems to have already made up its mind on this and isn't really listening to the community. I would oppose simply because drama seemed to constantly follow her, and I don't see this as a net positive. Lifting any restrictions would make it a double problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis Brown, we've been discussing this for a little while, so it's not surprising that arbs have current views, however I'm not seeing anything from the community that can't be mitigated with the remaining restrictions and knowledge that she would be under scrutiny. I'm certainly willing to listen to counterpoints on that though, as I'm sure are other arbs. I'll also note that this set of motions have a "close" motion which hasnt started yet. There's still time for participation. WormTT(talk) 12:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything here to change my mind. No information was introduced, so all I can go by is the past, and the past was full of drama. I haven't seen many people who were known for drama come back and not cause drama. We don't change our spots. We can change our methods, maybe even our words, but that isn't the issue. I don't want to make it appear I'm poisoning the well for someone who it seems WILL be returning, so I will simply say I think it is a large mistake. Foolish even. If this were a discussion at WP:AN, I'm confident the community as a whole would vote against it. I wish her luck at whatever she may do, but I don't think returning here is wise at all. Time will tell, I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned by Dennis and others, the community doesn't know what has changed since the editor in question was banned, so it has no way to infer how likely a return will be successful. The extensive disruptive conduct found in the case documents a pattern of behaviour that reflects a fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's current ethos. I appreciate that ethos may be flawed in numerous ways, but it is what it is, and editors who cannot contribute within its shortcomings (even if trying to overcome them) are bound to clash with others repeatedly. isaacl (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Worm That Turned, as an Arb, I think you really have to ask yourself, if this was taken to the entire community to decide, would they remove the ban? Arb is supposed to reflect the community, no different than admin actions should reflect community consensus. If the community had the same info you have, would they remove the ban? I find it very, very difficult they would, but admit I don't have your info. There was a lot of damage that still hasn't healed, and at the end of the day, taking this risk is going to be questioned when and if it backfires. I just can't imagine a scenario where the community as a whole would support this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis Brown, there are two points to this. Firstly, if the community as a whole had been faced with the information we'd been given for the appeal, I think there's a good chance that she would have been unbanned. The community is a forgiving one, and I have seen us bring back other previously disruptive editors into the fold. However, this wasn't a community ban, it was an Arbcom ban - so it is right that it should be on Arbcom to make the decision, private information and all. That said, having been presented with additional information, I have swapped my vote. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a tough call, I get that. I'm only aware of some of the offwiki stuff (I run a business, I don't keep up with much drama). I just know that we have always had problems with certain types of editors, in particular, those with agendas that are incompatible with the neutrality required to edit here. My goal was just to raise the issue of "what would the community do, if they could cut through the mess?" which isn't the only thing that (I believe) a good Arb must consider, but it is core to the job. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little confused too on why the Community got notified half-way through, but the main decisions all seem reasonable. No complaints with the end result. I should note that I disagree with WTT that IBANs aren't "stigmatised sanctions". Perhaps 2-way IBANs shouldn't be...but they absolutely are. 1-way IBANS definitely are. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the accusations below and the off-wiki evidence that has rapidly driven a mass arb-change in votes, I'd somewhat say don't do it, and I'd definitely say "I'm not informed enough to make a confident comment" Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • GorillaWarfare, if you think you've pinged Sitush, I believe you're mistaken. There, now I've done it. But pings don't always work. Shouldn't he be notified that Lightbreather's one-way I-ban from him is up for review? He may have an opinion. Bishonen | tålk 12:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Indeed, if GorillaWarfare pinged me it did not work. I am flabbergasted by this decision when Lightbreather would appear still to be criticising individual editors etc off-wiki. We had extensive problems across many areas and with such apparent off-wiki criticism I really do not think this is a good idea at all, whether or not specific topic bans etc are in plae. I certainly do not want to see Lightbreather even on the same page as me - I still bear the scars of all the nonsense she perpetuated off wiki several years ago (people caste-warring on articles look up my username and then, among other things, sometimes come at me with insults that can only have been derived from the Lightbreather fracas as reported by certain outlets). Yes, I understand that she suffered some awful off-wiki abuse herself but this is not a "two wrongs make a right" game. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not going digging through years of old off-wiki stuff but if memory serves me right, LB was actually fuelling unwarranted accusations about me off-wiki, including in media interviews. And, as I have just said, it seems she may be fuelling stuff off-wiki regarding at least one other person as recently as this year. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sitush, do you have any evidence of this that you can send to ArbCom? If any of this is ongoing or has occurred within the past year or so, that would affect my thinking on this. I also recognize that people aren't as likely to report off-wiki issues with banned editors, so it's quite possible that there have been instances that ArbCom is not aware of. – bradv🍁 15:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, ten+ years on and I still struggle with complex indent schemes Evidence of what? Of the recent criticism relating to A. N. Other, yes. Of the fact I still get hassled about it, less easy to do. If someone knows how to search interactions with me over the last, say, couple of months and do so for threads involving the word misogynist, there is definitely something in that period. And it didn't even relate to an article about a woman, it was just random and therefore obviously connected with the disruption reported years ago. But there is much more further back and I get emails about it which I simply delete. I think there are a few admins who would be prepared to vouch for me getting vile hassle via email due to my involvement in the India sphere but I'd be mad to keep it.
I do not routinely follow what Lightbreather does off-wiki - I've looked today due to this thread and the last time I saw anything was maybe six months ago, when something was linked from somewhere that ... you know how it works when you go clicking links.
I'm curious as to why LB's user page at meta was deleted on 1 July. Well, I know it was "user requested" because it says so ... but what was it that needed to be hidden? - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to caste aspersions against someone who is currently banned? Is it even an aspersion to question the timing of this, given it is US election year and LB was vocal in all sorts of matters on Wikipedia that might be significant come November. I realise you are suggesting that the topic bans remain but the involvement was spread wide on-wiki and, as Dennis Brown suggests, this is not a leopard likely to change its spots. If I've overstepped by saying this then, obviously, remove it and accept my apologies. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno should the move to close really say Lightbreather may appeal this decision to the committee in six months' time. bearing in mind the concerns that have been raised? The chances of Lightbreather returning as a valued contributor seem to me to be vanishingly small. We all know it is easy to continue indulging in the same obsessive behaviour, both in interests and criticism, without being detected, whether on or off wiki. Is your wording simply because of "indefinite does not mean infinite" and, if so, is that not sending a poor message in this circumstance? - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sitush: The committee generally sets a limit on when an appellant can submit a fresh appeal (in this case, six months will put this to a new committee). We can't bind future committees (so we rarely say "never re-apply"; such a user would probably be globally banned or something), and if we remain silent on a re-application period, the committee receives re-appeals too soon for the workload to be efficiently managed. That a limit was set does not speak to whether any of those setting that limit believe a re-appeal would be successful. –xenotalk 15:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
xeno, that a future committee cannot be bound by this one makes some sense but, at least in theory, it means that longevity becomes a significant issue in determination: institutional memory weakens through people leaving and any poor off-wiki behaviour can be hidden even though it might continue (a case of WP:BEANS, in effect). Thryduulf responded to this query also with I'd suggest that if in the future (which may be six months, may be six years) she presents convincing evidence that she has changed then it is right that an appeal be considered. As this very page demonstrates an appeal being considered does not mean that it will be successful, but the comments suggest that given enough time and evidence of change, the community might accept her back with restrictions, so at this time declaring her block to be infinite does not seem to accord with the community's desire. which seems ill-informed to me because (a) this decision was not made by the community, nor was its desire anything near that which is claimed; (b) they actually do not know what the committee saw; and (c) for some members to swing so quickly on presentation of evidence suggests that the appellant may have outright misled them in the application and, if so, could well do it again.
As an aside, I would be grateful if the committee consider try to simplify any consideration of future appeals by anyone. This one actually gave me and, seemingly, a few other people the misapprehension that the appeal had been successful as to unbanning and the issue at hand was just the various restrictions. Furthermore, not notifying someone with a direct interest (ie: me) was a pretty appalling oversight and, combined with the appearance of a fait accompli, might even have led to a field day for conspiracy theorists. - Sitush (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, not promptly notifying interested parties (i.e. the ones affected by the motions above) was an oversight. In the future we should ask the clerks to make such notifications as soon as the motion is posted, and the committee should refrain from voting until such notifications have been issued. Regarding this specific motion, the deliberations needed to be on-wiki as it was a public ban, but even more importantly, we needed to give the community the opportunity to provide any potentially missing pieces to make sure we weren't making a mistake. I'm grateful that has happened.
Regarding your first point, I would not be in favour of applying any additional restrictions on future appeals, nor should we prejudge whether they might be successful. The only thing we should do is ensure that there is a proper record of past appeals so that a future committee has all the information it needs, and this motion and discussion will serve as part of that record. – bradv🍁 17:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bradv, thanks. I assume ArbCom's own private systems keep a note of whatever is not permitted to be shown publicly and would be reviewed by a future committee if another appeal emerges. Does Lightbreather get told the specifics of why her appeal is rejected thus enabling her, if she so desires, either to amend her overt behaviour or fly under the radar in future, depending on one's point of view. I don't think I've been involved in an arbcom site ban review before, so I'm an innocent with this stuff, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sitush, no problem. We have an internal mailing list which keeps complete archives, so any future committee will be able to see our discussions with Lightbreather, our internal deliberations, and the draft motions (also recorded on arbwiki). We have conversed fairly extensively with Lightbreather by email and she is aware of the committee's concerns. – bradv🍁 20:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ealgdyth let me know that this discussion was ongoing. We determined as a community that even the most productive editors don't deserve a home here if they are uncivil and their language or attitude may scare off other potential editors. The problem is that uncivil language is not the only measure of whether we are scaring off productive editors. Some editors - myself included - quit because of the immense headache of trying to follow the rules when someone else is being completely disruptive in a "nice way". It's having to repeatedly clean up messes being deliberately made by someone who can toe the line just enough to make their agenda slightly less obvious. I was once an extremely productive editor here. I now limit myself to creating the occasional article here and there in large part because the project does a poor job of preventing disruptive editors from sucking all of the oxygen out of the room. Lightbreather was one of those disruptive editors. During her time on this project, her ratio of productive to disruptive conduct was extremely low. She also targeted other editors on other sites (which should, IMO, be grounds for a permanent ban). She was given many chances to change and chose to double down. If Lightbreather has been able to be productive on other wikis, that's great - let her stay there. Why would we run the risk that she will drive off other editors again? Not necessarily people she's attacked, but people who see the mess on the pages she touches and decide they don't want to get involved? If we allow her back, who is going to monitor her behavior here? How many chances will she get? If things degenerate, how much of a timesuck will she be allowed to be? How many other editors will decide this place isn't worth it because we are protecting the disruptive over those who want to put their heads down and get to work? Karanacs (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems I missed the chance to voice my thoughts as it appears that Arbcom has already decided on the outcome. Oh well, I'm sure we'll get to discuss it further at AN or ANI ... or even an Arbcom case down the road. If only banning disruptive editors were as easy as unbanning (see WP:AN if you doubt this). Anyway - best wishes to all, and good luck with the outcome. — Ched (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Striking some of my comments as it seems that a good fair number of the Arbs did indeed have a second look at evidence(?), and some listening to the community). Have to admit I'm impressed by some of them. TY — Ched (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tricky case. A couple thoughts. (a) I have no idea about what off-wiki business there may be, and I trust arbs' judgment as far as that goes. Depending on what it is, I would expect that it could trump all of this. (b) if a motion that was going to pass then fails because of "community concerns", then it should probably actually be put to the community rather than rely on this section being a representative sample (even those who have commented here have mentioned that the role of the community is unclear). (c) As for the merits, what I remember of this case is that there was a whole lot of unpleasantness involved from many people, including bad behavior from LB, bad behavior from others (no fewer than four of whom went on to be indeffed or banned), and lots of on- and off-wiki drama. None of these are reasons to vacate the outcome of the case themselves, since there was some clear evidence of problematic behavior by LB, but considering the messy circumstances of the case and the amount of time that's gone by (5 years is a very long time here), I'm sympathetic to the idea of seeing what happens (and the expectation, as the arbs mentioned, that there will be considerable scrutiny on her edits). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarifying - is it possible for individual restrictions (like 4.3.3 or 4.3.5) to be removed even if there are no consensus to remove the site ban?--GZWDer (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, anything's possible but I think at the end of the day if we don't unban there's no point in the rest of it. As far as an actual rule or anything, I honestly don't know. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I read those "additional votes" as "riders" that need the unban as a vehicle. Without the unban, no riders. –xenotalk 12:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually useful to remove excess rules. We have a lot of individual restrictions on editors, which are exceptions to the main "rulebase" which is complicated enough. The simpler these things are the better for all concerned. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Lightbreather’s behaviour was so egregiously bad, she should simply be invited to find another hobby. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • People can change in 5 years, If there's off-wiki evidence suggesting little to nothing has changed then to be blunt LB should remain blocked . –Davey2010Talk 17:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lightbreather unban appeal (September 2022)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I come before the arbitration committee and the community today to ask again to have my site ban lifted.

First, I accept the "Findings of Fact" from the 2015 case against me. I was not the first Wikipedia editor to be harassed (including sexually) on- and off-wiki, but my own conduct became disruptive. For that I am sincerely sorry and I apologize. In addition, I have deleted my blog. (There is no longer a lightbreather.com.)

Second, there are five "Remedies" against me: 1) Site-ban, 2) Gun control topic ban, 3) Restricted to one account, 4) 1RR, and 5) Reverse topic ban. I am asking only to have the site-ban lifted at this time. I will not ask about the other restrictions for at least 12 months.

Third, I have a BA in journalism and copy editing is my forté. Not only do I enjoy editing, but I can be an asset to the project. In addition to working on WP:WIRED - and possibly WP:AFRO - pages, I also imagine myself making quite a lot of “gnome” edits. Further, I have taken to heart what I learned from my previous on-wiki experience and will be a better Wikipedian.

Thanks for your consideration. -Submitted by Lightbreather via email to the Arbitration Committee

Previous public appeal

Dear community:

I am following the on-wiki discussion and appreciate the opportunity provided by the Arbitration Committee to address some questions and comments from “Lightbreather unban appeal” at WP:ARM.

1. One question is how I'm going to avoid the behaviors that resulted in being banned. I discussed that extensively with the June 2020 committee, but to summarize, two ways.

FIRST, I won't edit gun, gun control, or gun politics articles or comment on associated talk pages. Not just because of my topic ban, but also because I do not want to edit there. The topic still interests me as a person, but not as a Wikipedia editor.

Please note that I edited other subjects without major disputes in my active years. (The exception being "Silicon Valley" with the editor banned by the WMF in 2015 after my case’s closure.)

Examples of not-gun-related articles/lists I edited:

SECOND, if someone reverts an edit of mine, I'll simply let it lie. For example, of my first eight edits on Wikipedia, four were reverted without comment and four were reverted as "link spam" - a term as a newbie I didn't know. I didn’t revert them.

2. Some in the appeal discussion have suggested that I want to push a POV on "... gender issues, politics, etc". I don't believe I did any major editing on any gender or politics articles aside from those mentioned above. Except for participating in GGTF discussions, gender was a subject area - like politics in general - I was not active in. For instance, a few people think I was involved in "Gamergate" editing, but I was NOT.

I did create a short-lived women’s Kaffeeklatsch page, but that was in response to discussions surrounding my Meta proposal for a WikiProject Women space, which received dozens of endorsements: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women#Endorsements Nonetheless, I have no desire to try to create such a space now myself.

3. A couple people are worried that I want to edit in the Black Lives Matter subject area. I did name WP:WIRED and WP:BLM before, but it is properly WP:WIRED - and possibly WP:AFRO - that I'm interested in and mentioned in my current appeal. (BLM interests me as a person, but not as an editor.)

A couple people are also concerned that I want to edit about elections. Mercy no! This is the message I’m trying to relay: I do NOT want to edit in controversial areas.

4. Some have said that I only deleted my blog to pass this appeal. Of course, in a perfect world I would never have created the blog. But I am a human and I did what I did.

In 2020, when I first appealed my ban, I made no changes to my blog. Its existence was well known among some Wikipedians, so deleting it did not seem the right thing to do. At the time I wrote that appeal, of my 50-something blog posts, three were from 2018 and one each from 2019 and 2020. Nonetheless, in July 2020, in response to committee feedback, I extensively censored the blog. What I wrote at the time:

“Although significantly editing archived stories goes against my instinct and my training, I am going through my blog posts one by one and either A) unlisting them from the blog or B) editing them to remove most Wikipedia usernames. The posts I have unlisted are the one I published in the first half of this year (in March 2020) plus older ones that include a Wikipedia username in the title and focus on the editing behavior of one or more Wikipedia editors. The other posts I have edited to use nonspecific identities: for example, using the term “an editor” instead of giving the actual Wikipedia username. Exceptions are posts made before 2016 and posts that reference banned, blocked, or inactive Wikipedia editors.”

In response to my most recent appeal, the committee suggested that I remove more content from the blog. I considered doing so, but ultimately decided to just get rid of it. (Of course I know it’s on the Internet Archive.)

5. Finally, I acknowledge some think I am a leopard that will never change its spots. I doubt that I can say anything to change their minds. Rather I would reiterate that I am a human being who has learned from past mistakes and given the chance I believe you will see that is true.

Posted from e-mail on behalf of Lightbreather. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Lighbreather unban[edit]

Remedy 1 of the Lightbreather case ("Lightbreather: Site-ban") is lifted, subject to a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any editor may request that the site ban be re-imposed, or appropriate topic bans placed, by the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the site ban is to be considered permanently lifted. Restrictions detailed in remedies 2-6 remain in place until actively appealed.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Proposed. I would like to thank the community for their time and expressing their opinions on this matter. I understand that there is considerable consternation regarding letting Lightbreather back and that a number of people would prefer a "no, never" response. However, among those responses, there are some I disagree with - such as "she only took the blog down for the appeal". That is a "damned if she does, damned is she doesn't" way of thinking. The way I see it, despite her previous reservations of censorship, she has completely removed the blog, which to me does show growth and is enough that I'd willingly give her a chance. I have considered the reasoning behind the remaining concerns carefully and felt that the best way to mitigate the concerns is a long probationary period, where any editor can request that the ban is re-instated - or a topic ban is placed if appropriate. I did also consider an upfront topic ban from American Politics and/or Black Lives Matter, but since the concern was hypothetical, I did not propose them (though I may support one if Arbs feel strongly). Lightbreather, I recommend you stay away from these two topics all together.
    From a administrative point of view, copyedits by arbitrators are welcome and I will note that lifting of this remedy does not preclude any administrator blocking Lightbreather for breach of normal wikipedia rules. Breaches of remedies 2-6, especially Gun Control topic ban and the reverse topic ban, can be raised at WP:AE as normal. WormTT(talk) 10:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that I wouldn't object to the "any uninvolved admin may re-instate ban with Arbcom review" formulation - or indeed without Arbcom review. The reason I chose ARCA was that I felt that because this is a contentious decision, Arbcom should take responsibility for the consequence of deciding what to do if disruption happens. WormTT(talk) 14:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I believe WTT has hit upon the major points I would have otherwise felt a need on which to comment. Primefac (talk) 10:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is an extraordinary case (or we wouldn't be here at ARM!). Lightbreather's past conduct no doubt warranted a ban, but the egregious sexual harassment to which she was subject is very much a mitigating factor—or from another point of view, an aggravating factor (i.e., very few of us could be at their best under such conditions). Combined with the time that's passed, I think it is fair to extend Lightbreather a last chance. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I am undecided on the merits of an unban, but I think this motion makes it too hard to re-impose a ban so I definitely won't be supporting it. I would much prefer a version that would allow for a block to be placed as an AE action - perhaps automatically reviewed by the committee in the format above - should disruption resume after an unban. If I land at a no on the merits I will reply to update that as well just for any future looks.. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am against unblocking here at all. While in general we don't ban forever, I don't see Lightbreather having a strong likelihood of having a successful return to Wikipedia. Many years ago, ArbCom bans were generally of a one-year fixed duration; however, automatic unbans (for lack of a better descriptor here) proved to be troublesome enough that a banned user now has to appeal for reinstatement. That said, over time, successive iterations of ArbComs have tended to topic ban a user over a full site ban; the latter case is either poor conduct everywhere or particularly egregious conduct. Having reviewed this matter in detail multiple times given many appeals, I don't think the potential drawbacks given the earlier difficulties with collaborative editing across multiple topic areas outweigh the benefits of a return. Maxim(talk) 19:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I land lightly here for two reasons. One reason is the merit of the request, and one being the issue that Barkeep has. (Adjusting the block conditions wouldn't remove my light opposition.) --Izno (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per my comments below. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes given the additional comments that might be forthcoming below would you mind linking which comments you're "pering"? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The ones from 7 September in the "Arbitrator views and discussion" section. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I intend to abstain on an arb's forthcoming alternative motion to unban with stricter conditions but I'll oppose here per BK. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I am abstaining because I have not studied this case well enough to make a fully informed descision, and I do not expect to catch up while this is open. - Donald Albury 21:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather unban (alt)[edit]

Remedy 1 of the Lightbreather case is suspended for a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may block Lightbreather (talk · contribs) for any of the behaviors identified in the Findings of Fact or for failure to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations as an Arbitration Enforcement action for up to 1 year. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported to the Arbitration Committee for automatic review. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including reinstating a site ban. In the event that no administrator imposes such a block, the remedy will automatically lapse after twelve months. Restrictions detailed in remedies 2-6 remain in place until actively appealed.

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 3 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Thanks to Barkeep for putting this up. Please consider this my first choice, with the original motion second. I'll leave my comments on the merit of the case with the original motion. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If this gets us to a point where we can all potentially agree on something then that is worth it. For the record I have reworded the last sentence to be more specific regarding the other remedies not being repealed by this motion. Primefac (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I support this, with a similar reasoning to my support on the other motion WormTT(talk) 12:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I somewhat reluctantly find myself here. I have to say that some of the email correspondence that Lightbreather has had with ArbCom has left me less than impressed and give me concern that isaacl's description of her ability to be a member of the community is correct. However, some of that impression stems from is clearly a miscommunication about just who would be notified of this appeal. Unlike isaac, if this appeal isn't successful I just can't imagine one that would be and so we'd effectively be in a "never" category. And while I think she's close to the line of never, and don't begrudge those who think she's on the wrong side of it, I don't think Lightbreather falls in the never category. So I am supporting an unban. I will put it out there that I will, as an individual uninvolved administrator, be quite willing to level an arbitration enforcement block should she prove incapable of the productive lower visibility editing she has promised the Committee during this appeals process. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Thanks to Barkeep for putting this together. *Sighs* I'm not 100% thrilled with LB. Her replies via email are...voluminous. But we've done this song and dance several times now, and LB shows that she does want to be part of the community, and that she is willing to go to considerable lengths to make that happen. She worked with us on the blog issue. She's been very open and reflective. On the whole, I find LB a bit unpleasant to deal with, but I chock that up to the ArbCom process. I echo Barkeep: if we say no here, this is effectively a never unblock. But as far as folks we've blocked go, LB is on the milder end. I don't think this should be a never. So I'm inclined to give LB a final chance. If she gets blocked again, then its a never. But I can't justify blocking her forever without offering her a second chance. I also want to thank the community for its considerable input on the matter, and seeing as they lean unblock, I think we should consider their sage advice. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. CaptainEek puts it well. LB has done more than we asked as a token of intent. As we noted earlier this year, an ArbCom unblock is not a statement about the past events which led to the block, but an act of hope in regard to the future. Cabayi (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I remain weakly here per previous. Barkeep alludes to my concerns. --Izno (talk) 17:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my vote on the other motion. Maxim(talk) 20:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I think this is the right set of post-unban restrictions. I can't support this motion because I am not convinced that on net, Lightbreather's return will be a net positive for Wikipedia – including the experiences of specific other editors on the project. However, I know other arbs have considered this matter more deeply than I have been able to (for time reasons), so I will defer to their judgment. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Kevin: I'm still not sure if this is a net positive, but I haven't had time to keep up with the latest developments so I'll defer. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am abstaining because I have not studied this case well enough to make a fully informed descision, and I do not expect to catch up while this is open. - Donald Albury 21:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussions (unban appeal)[edit]

  • Little explanatory note: LB appealed to us via email some months ago. After vigorous discussion, we found that there was some appetite to unblock (and some appetite to not), but that the community needed to be consulted first. I'll note if we unblock, we are not vindicating her, and that the initial ban was good; we are lifting this only because we are willing to give her a second chance. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 15:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting that I raised Lightbreather's last appeal at this location, and was supportive. More information came to light regarding her blog, meaning the appeal ultimately failed. I am hopeful that sufficient time has passed, and combined with the fact that she has completely removed her blog in entirety, something I take as an act of good faith, I am hopeful that we may be able to reintegrate her with the community. For now, I'd like to hear community thoughts. WormTT(talk) 15:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for you comments so far. I do understand that the response from some individuals will be a "no, never", and that's fine. However, it takes an awful lot for me to move to "no, never". Two years ago, Lightbreather came with a decent appeal, which was rightly turned down after the community brought information to our attention. I wasn't expecting to entertain another appeal before 2025, but when she came to us earlier this year, the tone was conciliatory - she wasn't demanding everything be brushed away that she didn't agree with, she wasn't negotiating to come back as she liked, she just wanted to come back and prove herself.
    This can be shown, most clearly, by the deletion of her blog. There were no cries of censorship, no complaints, she just deleted it wholesale.
    People can change in seven years. I'm all for a probationary period. I'm all for making sure that the restrictions are right for her return, be that adding interaction bans, or topic bans for areas that are of particular concern, but I think most of them are already in place.
    But I'd like someone to persuade me why I should think "no, never", I'm not seeing that. And if not never, why not now? WormTT(talk) 07:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've probably spent more time on Lightbreather's appeals than any other appeal over the last 21 months. This is a complicated case because LB clearly was harmed by other Wikipedians, but she also caused real harm to Wikipedians. Two wrongs don't make a right, but it does engender in me some sympathy. But that sympathy is also only there because I sense a genuine desire to make what amends there can be for people LB harmed. I know that the blog has been an ongoing concern from editors who were targeted. I believe that those issues have been addressed. To the extent that they haven't been I'd like to give LB the chance to do so. But beyond all that I really do want to hear from the community. As noted here I'm sympathetic to the appeal, but there is a reason I didn't post this as an actual motion (with vote) to unban. I want to hear from the community and I know other arbs share that POV which is why we made the decision to notify everyone who participated last time and to also post this to ACN/AN. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown thanks for your feedback. If there was a motion to unban would you want a 1 way iBAN? I am in no rush here and will be thinking about the feedback you, Sitush, and others have offered but would want to understand your preferences if we proceed to some sort of vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown I think we have different conclusions about just how known of a quantity she is. I get that you feel she is well known and so it's unsurprising that for you she falls in the "never" category. I'm not quite there. As for only telling us what we want to hear, some information in her past appeals were definitely not what arbs wanted to hear and yet she wrote it anyway. And as I think we both know even when people attempt to say what you want to hear it can be revealing in ways that they don't mean it to be. So I do think it will be useful, at least for me, in helping reach a decision (just as it's been useful hearing from you and others with concerns). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So I've been thinking a lot about this and will admit I find people who are suggesting we oppose this unban request raising points that resonate with me. In general is someone with the number of iBANs and Editing Restrictions that Lightbreather has, someone who can work in our collaborative environment? The serious suggestion that if we're going to unban we need to add another topic ban to the list only underscores this. Where I get hung-up, and why I'm not just ready to say "guess I'm opposed too", is that I feel Lightbreather is mission aligned with our project in many ways and what happened essentially happened over a two year period 7 years ago. Some of what has been present in previous appeals to the committee, but admittedly not the one that has been posted here, are reasons why she would be able to work collaboratively going forward in ways that did not happen last time. Are there any arb objections to asking her, via e-mail, if she would like to add anything to her statement in response to concerns that have been raised so far? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ealdgyth if you have other priorities I would not begrudge you from bowing out of future conversations but I've appreciated your feedback and have found it helpful. That said I don't think it's fair to ascribe to all arbs a comment I made. I'm clearly trying to work through my thinking here and, again, your feedback is helpful but I don't know where I'm going to end up so it's doubly unfair to suggest others hold it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DeCausa the fact that it was the entirety of her career is true but doesn't alter the fact that it was a 2 year period 7 years ago. People can and do change over the course of 7 years and I do believe in 2nd chances. The idea that the disruption continued until more recently is one I'm glad you've raised. I'll think some more about that. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaacl Wikipedia is not the same as it was when Lightbreater was banned. So even if she is the same person that doesn't mean it would be recieved the same way today. For most editors of LB's general profile, I think this change means that they are less likely to find a fit today than in 2015. However, for reasons Wugs and NYB mention in their comments (even as Wugs ends up a decline), the change in atmosphere might actually enable LB to be able to edit collaboratively even if she hasn't changed. I recognize might is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting for the record that I have recused from this matter. --Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objections, Barkeep. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: Ditto. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm about to be inactive for 7-10 days and may miss any alternate motions. I would probably support an unban with more stringent restrictions, and/or one where a re-block can be placed as an AE action. If any other arb would like to pair with me in that light, I'd appreciate it, but no obligation, of course. --BDD (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment in the previous appeal came before the turning point, but I stand by the general sentiment: bans prevent disruption and if we believe an editor can return to contribute productively and without issue, then we should seriously consider lifting the ban. Now, that sentiment doesn't mean we should take everyone at their word; the disruption we aim to prevent is not just edit-wars or incivility, but also time wasted in monitoring the editor and the general harm to the collegial relationships between editors. I'm of the same mind as Thryduulf: "So the question is has she changed enough that the risk of harm to others is low enough that we can safely give her another chance? Having thought about this for a couple of days now I'm still no closer to having an answer". Unlike Thryduulf, I don't really have the luxury of punting on that question.
    Given the views expressed here, my decision is to oppose unbanning at this time. The points offered by SilkTork and isaacl are what I think moved me away from support, and it's worth reiterating them. Isaac rightly points out that it's hard to gauge whether people have changed, and that fundamental disagreements with the ethos of the project are hard to overcome. While I may be more forgiving than Isaac, his point is correct, and regardless, what we should be considering is risk tolerance not forgiveness. SilkTork provides a sympathetic, though critical, assessment of the ban appeal, and ultimately concludes with a point that I think is compelling: given the extraordinary harm caused by LB, and the potential for that harm to recur, it would be irresponsible to subject editors to those risks without truly compelling evidence. And that all brings me back to Thryduulf's question. Given the potential for harm here, any uncertainty counsels declining the appeal. I'm personally not in the "no, never" camp, but the bar here is quite high to say the least. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also like to thank everyone for their input so far. It may seem confusing or like a waste of time that we brought this up for public input, but the replies have been beyond helpful and genuinely changed my thinking. I appreciate the perspectives offered. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion (unban appeal)[edit]

  • I don't know anything about this situation beyond what I learned from reading WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather just now. But, this really looks like a no-brainer to unban. The problems that led to the ban were 7 years ago. That's plenty of time to cool off and reexamine your behavior. In 2020, she did some editing on simple.{wikipedia,wiktionary}.org which looks productive. She says she understands the issues that led to her ban and she's implicitly promising to stay away from the specific topics that were trouble areas for her by asking that the more specific topic-bans remain in place. If this isn't the kind of appeal which gets granted, we need our collective AGF meters recallibrated. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For reference: previous unban appeal at Special:PermaLink/971701568#Motion: Lightbreather unban (July 2020) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. You're correct that noting this previous appeal here would have been useful and still is, so I'll be putting this up top. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case and unban appeal from July 2020 really should have been linked in the appeal to start with - shouldn't have been left to the community to link it. I'd like to see how LB plans to change their behavior rather than just a blank "I'll be a better Wikipedian". I'm not expecting an apology, but I'd really like to know how it's going to be better. Yes, the harrassment they experienced was awful, but that doesn't mean that they should not explain how they intend to deal with things if they are subjected to such harrasment again (and I sincerely hope they are not ... no one should deal with that, unfortunately, people .. suck.) Ealdgyth (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As to why I'm leaning towards this not being a good idea - I don't see that LB has engaged with how they plan to change ... how are they going to avoid the behaviors that resulted in them being banned. What are they going to do different so as to avoid getting into that sort of disruptive behavior? I'm seeing nothing. While it's good that they deleted their blog, and I'm glad they now see their behavior as disruptive, I'm not seeing the last (and most important step) of showing that they know how to change their behavior so that things don't end up back with a ban again. I'm not being hard on them to be a PITA, I'm trying to help them actually make this work. Without some changes in their outlook, I fear the first time they run into difficulties/opposition ... they'll return to the behavior that got them banned. That's my concern, and until it's addressed, I'll have to go on the record as saying I don't think this is a good idea. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See... here's where I have an issue with the arbs on this unban discussion. The idea that LB is "mission aligned with our project". No, I think it's pretty clear that LB's mission is to push a point of view on various topics - gun control, gender issues, politics, etc, and that they want to use Wikipedia to push that agenda forward. The fact that they aren't asking to lift those topic bans NOW isn't necessarily a repudiation of them wanting to push them in the future, because the unban request does not disavow wanting to edit in those topics, it just disavows asking about lifting those restrictions for another 12 months at least. (This statement should not be taken as me taking a stand on those particular issues against LB, just that I think the evidence from the ArbCom case and topic ban discussions is pretty clear that LB will push that POV in any way they can figure out) - so this is pretty clearly a case that they need to articulate HOW they will approach ALL issues differently than in the past - how will they work to collaborate with others that disagree with their positions and how will they work to ensure that they don't cause disruption. The appeal right there says LB wants to edit in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red - gender issues were a big flashpoint for problems with LB in the past. I think I'd have a lot less concerns if they had signaled they wanted to edit in a topic area where they didn't have a history of issues - say Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility or Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. (And I really don't have the time to deal with this - I'm busy as hell in RL and have very limited wiki time - I'd much rather be doing something else rather than watching a trainwreck happen again like in 2020 for the previous unban request) Ealdgyth (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More or less what I said last time: I'm not aware of all of the off-wiki business. The arbs will have to use their judgment about that. On the merits of the request, what I remember of this case is that there was a whole lot of unpleasantness involved from many people, including bad behavior from LB, bad behavior from others (no fewer than four of whom went on to be indeffed or banned), and lots of on- and off-wiki drama. None of these are reasons to vacate the outcome of the case themselves, but she's not asking for that. In fact, she's agreeing to the FoF and will continue to be under several strict sanctions. So unless what happened off-wiki trumps everything else (in which case, why would this even be a discussion), then considering (a) her acceptance that she was in the wrong, (b) the messy circumstances of the case, (c) the amount of time that's gone by (7 years is a very long time here), and (d) the extent to which existing sanctions limit opportunities for further problematic behavior, I'd say accept the appeal and see what happens (with the understanding that that there will be considerable scrutiny on her edits). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit novel but I think I'd be cautiously in favour of a trial period. A three-month suspension of the ban (all other remedies to remain in full effect), followed by a community review. No consensus at that review would mean the ban is reinstated.—S Marshall T/C 16:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The appeal in 2020 failed because the "more evidence about her blog" was evidence that Lightbreather doxxed two editors on it. While I won't name the two editors for obvious reasons, other community members should be aware that this happened. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 16:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Dox" doesn't appear in that motion. I see a couple people mention off-wiki "criticism", and arbs mentioned offwiki evidence, but I don't see anywhere that the motion failed because of doxing. I do sort of recall Lightbreather determining the identity of the person who had been harassing her on- and off-wiki (and who was later globally banned by the foundation). Is that what you mean? It's an awkward situation because arbs probably don't want to disclose what off-wiki evidence they have, but the fact that they are somewhat putting it up to the community (whom they know does not have access to that private evidence) indicates -- or should indicate, at any rate -- that the offwiki evidence is not so egregious, or not so cut-and-dry, such that it should be immediately disqualifying. Right? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Last time there was off-wiki evidence the Arbs were not aware of. When made aware that changed the thinking of many of them. That is certainly one reason for this public vote this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't follow. Why have a public vote if arbs are primarily basing their decisions on information the rest of us don't have? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't want to speak for other arbs. Speaking for myself, it's both to ensure we have all information we should, and because a lot can be discussed publicly. The community isn't expected to form consensus, only to provide feedback and information. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I assume when you wrote vote you really meant discussion? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rhododendrites: I sent in the evidence I'm referring to and the vote changes made me believe that it had something to do with that. The incident you're referring to is not the ones I'm referring to. To be slightly more specific without violating the policy myself, these were after LB was banned from Wikipedia. She linked these two editors to their real life identity for the purpose of claiming they were biased in their editing patterns. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 20:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Lightbreather's request. It's been long enough and I believe the interest in rejoining us, and adhering to our policies and guidelines, is genuine. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhododendrites' comment makes sense to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to provide any input on this, either positive or negative. I appreciate being notified (thank you Barkeep49), but I'm not interested in doing the research required to offer an informed opinion. Thank you, and best to all. — Ched (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before engendering an opinion on this, I would like to hear from @Sitush:, who has not been active since July. Sitush had provided offwiki evidence to Arbcom with some specifics, if I am reading the old appeal correctly. Sitush was extensively harassed. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the comments below from Dennis Brown, Sitush, SilkTork, GoldenRing, and others; I do not support an unban. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps an unban should be constructed as on a trial or probationary basis. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC) Striking per Dennis' comment below. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sitush's comments below have convinced me that the request should be denied. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I am sympathetic to the idea of an unban after seven years, I just read the declined 2020 unban request and encourage other editors to do so as well. I would like to hear from Sitush and Dennis Brown before making a decision. Since Sitush has been on a wikibreak for six weeks, would the committee consider emailing him about this discussion? Cullen328 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have emailed Sitush. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Barkeep49. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the wounds are still deep, the way it was framed, the constant drama. No, no, no. Some people are simply not suited to work in a collaborative environment. While we all gather around and sing Kumbaya, we seem to forget the WHOLE of the past. Yes, it's been 7 years, which seems to mean "a long time" to young people, but as I said in the last appeal, "I don't see anything here to change my mind. No information was introduced, so all I can go by is the past, and the past was full of drama. I haven't seen many people who were known for drama come back and not cause drama. We don't change our spots. " I'm sorry about the harassment that happened, I truly am, but that doesn't change the fact that she has and will be causing drama, a personality trait to create it, no different than some other banned editors who had exceptional skills but lacked the ability to get along, so we are better off without them. I'm likely to be in the minority, but I'm not going to sit by and say nothing. It's very easy, very easy, to be kind and nice in email, but that isn't the same as working with others, and ginning up drama to win an argument. Unbanning is a mistake. Putting all emotion aside, she is clearly a net negative for the project; a liability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49 I appreciate the sentiment, but no, I would not want a one way ban. I've been here way too long to need that. The very fact that I've spoken out and said what others were thinking (judging from the multiple "thanks" I've received for the comment) always has risks that an editor would come gunning for the editor that spoke out against them, but I would hope she isn't that foolish. While she tried dragging my name in the mud, it didn't stick. Flaws and all, I'm a known quantity here. What I want is not to have to hear that name dragged up at Arb again, and being a betting man, I'm willing to take that bet if you unban her. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, I don't care if you post an email response from her, but I fully expect it to be what some "need to hear" or manipulation, to be honest. She is a known quantity. More reassurances or promises aren't going to change the history or personality traits, which is the problem. Taking down the blog recently doesn't prove anything, and for that matter, it can be resurrected with a simple database upload. The problem is that it existed to begin with, which is her right, but demonstrates the type of personality we are dealing with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I received notification via email from Barkeep49, thanks. My instinct is that I agree with Dennis Brown but I will have a think for a few hours before committing. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Had a think & a Google. I will be unhappy if Lightbreather is allowed to return to editing. I agree with the points raised by Dennis & Silk Tork, and think my own comments from the 2020 appeal remain valid. In addition, I note that it seems she has only in the last month or so deleted her blog and seems to have acknowledged that this was done specifically to aid this appeal, not because of some fundamental spot-changing. Leopards and their spots do matter: I speak from my own experience that our nature becomes somewhat entrenched/less likely to change as we age, and LB is no young tyro by her own admission (off-wiki). The idea that these attitudes are from 7 years ago is slightly misleading: they were still in evidence at the 2020 appeal & I think thereafter (off-wiki), although BLM may have supplanted gun control as her topic du jours. Is there any significance to her appeals coinciding with the summers of years of major elections in the US? Probably not, but it is a curious coincidence. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note that I agree with Ealdgyth's post at 15:42 today regarding LB's purpose here being solely to push her agenda - it isn't about collating and disseminating the sum of all human knowledge etc but rather issues-based editing and righting what she perceives to be great wrongs. And she goes to extreme lengths to achieve it. Her blog & other off-wiki activities show that her agenda remains, & there is no indication that her style has changed. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barkeep49, thanks for posting LB's additional comments. I don't think she realises that pretty much any article on Wikipedia can be controversial - anyone recall the farrago at Bathrobe? WIRED-related articles have definitely had controversies. There is much more to handling a disputed situation than committing not to revert (which is a restricted action in many cases anyway). LB was quite often tendentious and disingenuous in her approach, as others have noted, and she could be still because it strikes me as being her nature. My memory of GGTF is mercifully receding but I could have sworn LB was involved in some form, even if only as a minor commentator. I assume her memory is better than mine but the Kaffeeklatsch idea sprang from what happened with the GGTF saga and as such it is arguably disingenuous to separate the two, but hey ho. - Sitush (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • K.e.coffman is dangling a red herring. The c-word stuff was an aside and indeed raising it here yet again shows that K.e.c still doesn't understand cultural differences &/or wants to impose a US-centric behavioural standard on the rest of the world. I refer them to the equally daft issues arising from the US usage of gangbanger which occurred around the same time. The matter at stake here is LB's behaviour, not WP:CIVILITY (which they should know by now is pretty much unrnforceable). - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huldra, firstly, two wrongs do not make a right; second, the "massively provoked" occurred after she had set her course & doubled down on stuff, if memory serves; and finally, no, it isn't very long ago - she was impugning & attacking off-wiki until very recently and demonstrating the same adversarial & agenda-pushing tendencies. Proposed involvement with WIRED etc is just another variation of the same theme & she still doesn't appear to understand or accept how things work here. - Sitush (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather per Dennis Brown. If this were an appeal posted at AN, I would have no hesitation in opposing it. Accepting the case FoF is a good start, I guess, but I still don't think this cuts the mustard. Given the scale of the problems that led to the ban, I want to see a far more concrete plan for how to prevent those problems happening again before even thinking about this. I want some convincing reassurance that those problems aren't going to resurface and I'm not seeing it. Deleting the blog is a step that seems to suggest a lot without actually saying any of it. People above seem to be taking it to mean quite a lot, and of course it might mean all that but it might not, too. The reverse topic ban is an interesting innovation to try to control the problems but that leaves Talk: and UserTalk:Lightbreather as forums for disruption and I really think the problems here are ones that require considerable personal change to resolve, not bans from particular spaces. I'm hesitant to endorse what seems to amount to "no, never" in Dennis' comments but I really struggle to see how Lightbreather can convincingly show the sort of change that's necessary here when this is a largely anonymous forum. GoldenRing (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an interesting bit of synchronicity that User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch was nominated for deletion immediately prior to this request by an editor who made an account 2 months prior to Lightbreather's last appeal. I would ask the arbitration committee to determine if these two editors are in some way affiliated. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is it really synchronicity if it's two months away from one of multiple possible meaningful dates? What, she prepared for an appeal... by socking? Even the most cursory look at that user's edits shows that their views do not seem aligned with LB's, and I'd be more curious if they lined up with one of the various users known for arguing with her in the past (but not that curious). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rhododendrites: That's what I don't really get about this. They nominated the WP:KAFFEEKLATSCH page for deletion a few hours before the appeal despite having never interacted with LB onwiki before. I guess it's a random coincidence based on what you and others have said but it sure is a strange one. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 23:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't read anything into it, no valid reason to. This just distracts from the real concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To repeat some of what I said during the last appeal: the extensive disruptive conduct found in the case documents a pattern of behaviour that reflects a fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's current ethos. I appreciate that ethos may be flawed in numerous ways, but it is what it is, and editors who cannot contribute within its shortcomings (even if trying to overcome them) are bound to clash with others repeatedly. Without any supporting evidence, it's hard to predict if the editor will be able to work with the present version of the Wikipedia community, including its traditions and principles. (I acknowledge, though, that I am probably less forgiving than the average editor who participates in these types of discussions when it comes to uncollaborative actions.) isaacl (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: when an editor is unable to interact collaboratively with the community, after many attempts by others to provide feedback, and disagrees with basic tenets of accepted community behaviour, I am reluctant to assume that time away alone has changed the editor's engagement style. I know some editors give themselves of examples of editors that can change, saying they were a vandal before, and now they're not. Run-of-the-mill vandalism, though, while showing a lack of respect towards the project, doesn't necessarily show a lack of ability to engage. When an editor was trying very hard to have positive interactions and yet made significant missteps, I'm wary of assuming without some justification that future attempts at collaboration will go differently. isaacl (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: the interaction issues I am thinking of are related to the basics of Wikipedia collaboration, and haven't changed (they are not related to topic areas). Like Wugapodes, I'm not saying never, however for me some bridges were burnt, and so I remain very cautious. I agree things "might" go well. The risk/benefit ratio seems high to me, though, without more evidence of how the risk is mitigated. isaacl (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to favour giving second chances to people who make mistakes or have a flare up during a heated moment. Having looked at the case and Lightbreather's website (still available on web.archive) I have grave concerns that this person is too methodical and obsessive in their revenge to fit comfortably in a working environment where of necessity we sometimes have to work with people who disagree with our views. I also have a concern that the appeal is one that I tend to be uncomfortable with because it contains unresolved issues: "I was not the first Wikipedia editor to be harassed (including sexually) on- and off-wiki". In my experience banned users who make appeals that include references to the trigger (usually a person, or a situation) tend to still harbour resentments. Though the appeal does mention their inappropriate response to the trigger, " my own conduct became disruptive", it is couched in such a way as to explain away or justify the inappropriate response. The "including sexually" is a particular key point, and one which they mention in interviews and postings on the internet. It is clearly a touch point. We cannot protect people on Wikipedia from users who get annoyed and post offensive stuff off-Wikipedia. This happens. It's ugly and unpleasant, like road rage. But it happens. When it happens we do our best to get rid of such users, and when we have got rid of them we encourage them to stay away. And that works both ways. It doesn't matter who started it. What matters is that we don't really want the sort of personality and mind set that this user clearly had of seeking revenge. And I suspect that this user still has that mind set, and I don't feel we should be running the sort of social experiment in which other users may get hurt, just to see if this user has changed their mind set. SilkTork (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was pinged because I commented two years ago (thanks Barkeep). At that time I was in favour of unbanning (at before the additional information came to light) provided all the other restrictions remained in place and she understood she would be on a very short leash. I later said What sunk this appeal was apparently evidence that her attitude has not changed since the ban, so I'd suggest that if in the future (which may be six months, may be six years) she presents convincing evidence that she has changed then it is right that an appeal be considered. so it's only fair that I follow that up now. This time the other restrictions are not being appealed, which is a good sign, and WormThatTurned's comments about the tone of the communication that the Committee have had with here are also encouraging. However, I also find myself in strong agreement with SilkTork. I was on the Committee at time of the original case and so I saw much of the harassment she received (all of the on-wiki stuff and from memory at least most of the off-wiki material too) and nobody should have to experience that - but sadly many people do and almost all of them do not use it as an excuse or justification for engaging in similar behaviour themselves. So the question is has she changed enough that the risk of harm to others is low enough that we can safely give her another chance? Having thought about this for a couple of days now I'm still no closer to having an answer, so I'm not going to offer an opinion either way beyond saying that if the appeal is granted it is done on the understanding that it is on a "one strike and you are out" basis - any harassment or disruption on her part will (not may, will) result in the ban being swiftly reinstated. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose any unban that does not add a topic ban from American Politics to her list of editing restrictions. I have no faith that she would make what is already a tense topic area any better in an election year. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too oppose any unban, for similar reasons to Dennis Brown and SilkTork. My involvement with this case has been limited to interaction with LB 2014/15. I've not been involved since then. LB says: "I was not the first Wikipedia editor to be harassed (including sexually) on- and off-wiki, but my own conduct became disruptive." My take on that is similar to SilkTork's. I read it as "I only became disruptive because I was harassed (including sexually) on- and off-wiki". LB's egocentric agenda-driven WP:BATTLE drama pre-dated, and was independent of, any harassment. It was her norm. It's disturbing that that recognition and self-awareness is still not there all these years later. It strongly suggests that her behaviour won't have changed. Everyone has the possibility to reassess, gain perspective, change, develop etc. Dennis Brown refers to a "personality trait to create" drama. That's the problem. A short fuse and a strong agenda is one thing. I think that's something that can change. But the narcissistic underpinning (this being but one example) suggests to me more of an immutable personality trait. That's not going to change. I think that narcissism drives her to be what SilkTork calls "methodical and obsessive" in revenge. Most likely bringing her back would just cause damage. And for what benefit? SilkTork's warning not to engage in an unban experiment "in which other users may get hurt, just to see if this user has changed their mind set" needs to be heeded. DeCausa (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: "what happened essentially happened over a two year period 7 years ago". True, but those two years were the entirety (bar 12 edits) of her WP career. It did happen 7 years ago, but the blog only came down in the last month or so. So she carried on her campaign over those 7 years. DeCausa (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to offer two last comments:
    1. Many of those supporting unbanning refer to LB's behaviour being provoked by harassment. While there was undoubtedly harassment at the end of her WP time, Lightbreather's entire WP career was manipulative, disruptive, WP:BATTLE/POV drama and that pre-dated the harassment. She never displayed at any period any constructive collaborative attributes. There's no cause and effect relationship between her appalling behaviour and the appalling harassment.
    2. This from her email posted by Barkeep49 is an unmistakeable warning she hasn't changed: Some in the appeal discussion have suggested that I want to push a POV on "... gender issues, politics, etc". I don't believe I did any major editing on any gender or politics articles aside from those mentioned above. Except for participating in GGTF discussions, gender was a subject area - like politics in general - I was not active in. For instance, a few people think I was involved in "Gamergate" editing, but I was NOT.. She pushed her gender politics agenda across multiple forums during her two years: Jimbo's talk page, ANI etc etc. It wasn't in articles and no one has said otherwise. Furthermore, no one on this page has claimed she was involved in Gamergate. Absolutely classic Lightbreather strawman tactics. That's a disturbing echo and warning from the past that nothing's change.
    DeCausa (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the unban request per WormTT, Rhododendrites and Drmies. --Andreas JN466 15:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had no prior engagement with LB (as far as I can recall) and only happened to take a look at this motion and read up on the linked history over the last hour or so. A few comments/questions:
    • Several arbs/commentators have stated effectively that the "what happened essentially happened over a two year period 7 years ago". I don't see how to reconcile that claim with the facts as I understand them. If I take the comments that the arbs made during the previous unban appeal ("evidence of continued hostility", "this is a continuing problem" etc) at face value, the problem persisted till at least Jul 2020. Wouldn't then it be more accurate to say that the issues lasted for (at least) 7 years till (at most) 2 years ago rather than the other way around?
    • I also see LB's deletion of the blog a month back being mentioned as one reason why an unban may be merited. But when the stated reason for the deletion is "In preparation for another appeal of my Wikipedia site ban", I don't know whether it represents a "change of heart" or just a tactical move. In this regards, see also SilkTork analysis of LB's admission of fault.
    • IMO off-wiki harrasment is categorically worse than almost any on wiki disruption, for the same reason that BLP violations are usually worse than other content problems. They both can cause harm to people in real life. Moreover, such harassment has a chilling effect because how is collaborative editing possible when one fears that falling afoul of certain editors can lead to real-world harm? (And yes, this point applies to whomever sexually harassed LB; I'm very comfortable saying that that person, if identified, should never edit wikipedia... even though that would still be an inadequate response since it will not lessen the harm done to LB).
    • IRL and, I believe, on-wiki, I tend to extend the rope quite a bit and am quick to forgive. But, I have also learned to be wary of being magnanimous with house money, i.e., patting myself on the back for AGFing or giving second chances when the consequences of doing so undeservedly falls on other people. I hope the arbs too will keep that in mind.
  • Abecedare (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just want to extract the claim made and/or insinuated above that Lightbreather is a POV-pusher or here just to push an agenda. There is clear evidence of various forms of disruptive editing on her part (as detailed in the old FoF and elsewhere -- and as I said before if there's evidence of egregious off-wiki behavior that arbcom has, they should just make this decision without community input), but there is a difference between focusing on one or a set of topics and POV pushing in a way that conflicts with WP:NPOV. I'm quite certain there were some specific diffs we could find that are POV-pushing, but that doesn't line up with the content of her edits that I'm familiar with. LB absolutely focused her efforts on two areas where she (not to mention others on Wikipedia and in the press) found evidence of pre-existing bias: gender bias and pro-gun bias. Eight years on from the GGTF stuff, the reality of our gender biases are more widely accepted/understood than they were in the time of GGTF, and there are fewer editors for whom bringing up gender bias triggers hostility these days. But then, as now, trying to contend with gun activists on Wikipedia (anonymous or otherwise), can be downright scary. The treatment LB and others received on- and off-wiki, combined with having done a poorer job than she has of concealing my off-wiki identity, are why I almost never touch those articles. But LB wasn't chilled by the threats and harassment. Even today, 7 years after being blocked, she's still the top contributor to high-traffic, high-activity, and hard to edit articles like gun politics in the United States, National Rifle Association, assault weapon, gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Assault weapons legislation in the United States, Nazi gun control argument, National Instant Criminal Background Check System, gun violence, Gun Control Act of 1968, small arms trade, etc. (nevermind the articles focused more on gender/diversity). None of this is to say she didn't cross some lines (see my main comment above), but to say that she's just here to push an agenda doesn't seem like a fair characterization of her actual contributions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't involved in her gun control editing so can't comment on that. But I am surprised at the above comments on her gender politics editing. Specifically, "the reality of our gender biases are more widely accepted/understood than they were in the time of GGTF" as though she was ahead of her time. I don't believe that there would be any greater appetite now compared to 2015 to accept her shoe-horning her WP:BATTLE gender perceptions into multiple WP forums. I think that is a very regrettable comment. Although I think it would be much better for LB to remain banned, I can see the outcome is pointing towards her unbanning. Comments like that are, in my view, only likely to be seen as validation of her history by LB, increasing the likelihood of her old behaviours reappearing on her return. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not going to opine on the merits of the appeal, but I'm writing to disagree with one of the community comments above. It has been suggested that it should be a strike against Lightbreather's appeal that she mentions off-wiki sexual harassment to which she was subjected. The terms "harassment" in general and "sexual harassment" in particular cover a wide range of behavior, some far more serious than others, and some easier to move beyond than others, though none acceptable. In this instance, at least one instance of off-wiki sexual harassment to which Lightbreather was subjected was depraved, disturbing, and extreme. Although that incident was not the fault of any current Wikipedia editor, I cannot fault Lightbreather if she remains angry that it happened and considers it relevant to the issue now before the Committee. I address no other issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view hasn’t changed from the 2020 unban appeal: Lightbreather’s behaviour was so egregiously bad, she should simply be invited to find another hobby. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After hearing from Dennis Brown and Sitush, I must oppose the unbanning. The harassment that Newyorkbrad describes was horrific and I am very sorry that it happened. But in the end, I think that Lightbreather is temperamentally unsuited to this project. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She only took down her blog for her appeal here. I ask, if she wasn't planning on appealing would she have taken down the blog? Based on the history I don't think so. So this whole blog bit is a red herring if you ask me. Valeince (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unban Oh dear oh dear oh dear. I have an extraordinary/execrable ability to write in four thousand words that which could be succinctly presented in forty. So I'm reluctant to dive in here (bullshit, I live for any opportunity to do this).
    I learned, yesterday, of this appeal. I also became more interested, as I'd heard that lightbreather had done off-wiki 'badness', so reading that 'lightbreather.com no longer exists' led me immediately to our dear friend archive.org, where nothing goes to die on the internet.
    I thence learned that I, dear reader, was quoted in the very first blog entry. The first person who directly interacted with lightbreather on WP, with the grossly offensive and patently guerilla-warfaring message "Please read the ‘talk’ page for the AWB article. The matter has been discussed previously. Scrubbing the word cosmetic from the article because it doesn’t appear in the law isn’t a valid reason. The cited sources state that the differences are cosmetic. It is the cited sources that matter here." Outrageous! Scandalous! Scurrilous!
    Thus began my interactions with lightbreather. It was not a pleasant affair. I argued policy, I argued common sense, I argued for comity and civility, I wikilawyered, I think at one point I got hit with one of my first 3RR's, an extreme rarity for me. I argued until I was blue in the face.
    lightbreather routinely made my blood boil with the take-no-prisoners, 'my point of view, even if it isn't notable, must be in this article because it is under-represented' attitude. Um, sources, wtf? WP:WEIGHT, wtf? Do these words ring a bell?
    So, enough bullshit preface. My first inclination - the first thought that came to my mind when I read "In addition, I have deleted my blog. (There is no longer a lightbreather.com.)" was...What in the actual fuck? So...you are scrubbing (see what I did there) your past bad behavior in order to plead for return to the project? That is most certainly NOT the action of a person who is 'sincerely sorry'. Contrition is shown by embracing every shitty thing you said in the past, owning it, and letting it live on forever, notwithstanding archive.org. I've said a metric shite-ton of shitty things in my life, online, and I regret perhaps 440kg of it. But I haven't deleted it. It's (nearly) all still out there, bleeding warts and all. Quite a fair share with followup contrition and acknowledgement that man, I can say some goddamned shitty things. The fact that I'm generally an empathetic misanthrope rather explains that fairly predictable path.
    So, one would, by this juncture, assume that it's an 'oh holy fuck no' from me. But it's not.
    While it's true that a leopard can't change it's spots...the spots can gray with time (I don't know if this is zoologically correct though, I wonder if there's a place where I can go to read up on that?)
    The whole AWB/lightbreather affair, for me, was quite a long time ago. Like lightbreather, I am no spring chicken. And with many moltings, many changing of the seasons, one can learn a thing or two or three or sixty three. About others, and about oneself. One can also, pleasingly, learn not to give a shit about the world's ills at times, because I don't have the goddamned time to spare, and my back hurts. And fighting wars on wikipedia is about as soul-deadening a task as there is. Notwithstanding wars on facebook youtube reddit instagram tiktok twitter nextdoor news-site-comments and whatever comes down the pike next year.
    I still edit here. Sometimes I dive into something that may be contentious/tendentious, but largely my heart has enough ache in it already, thank you very much, if someone comes at me hammer and tong, well, peace be upon you, I'll hit 'random' and fix some grammatical errors to restore my own inner peace.
    I've no idea if lightbreather has changed for the better or worse. As a card-carrying misanthrope, my inclination is to cynically assume that if lightbreather comes back, it'll just gradually devolve into drama again and a fairly swift ban again.
    But...I think this is being approached as if it's some sort of 'once it's done, there's no turning back'. True - those skilled in the ways of wiki can stretch the length of their stay after transgression with wikilawyering-craft. But it doesn't last. Not for the recalcitrant.
    Is there anything stopping this from being a very carefully crafted 'unban'? We know the bad behaviors. We have lightbreather's word, for what it's worth, that they are sincere and have changed. Okay. You're unbanned. Commit just one 3RR? You are banned again, no appeals, save your damned lightbreath, you haven't changed. Start warring over touchy cultural articles? Are you actually that stupid? Imagine. Banned. lightbreather isn't a child, and whether she's changed or not can only be found in returning. But if lightbreather colors outside the lines, even once, then we hang a little sign on the user page, "Definitely does not play well with others, confirmed", and the story ends there, forevermore.
    I do think back to the 'lightbreather.com is gone' aspect which conflicts with genuine contrition. I dislike that I'm arguing for a second chance after a fashion.
    But I do wonder if there's a certain degree of anticipated schadenfreude going on in the back of my mind...
    yup, misanthrope, confirmed. Anastrophe (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have, regrettably, one other observation/speculation to add, which bubbled up in reflecting on this matter (and the many other comments here, which - both for and against - have been illuminating and remarkable). In returning, there is, I think, a real risk of intentional blowback. Which is to say that LB left a long trail of angry and resentful (often rightfully so) people in her wake - on and off wiki - who will not wish to see her succeed in becoming a simple, gnomish editor as she claims to desire. Indeed they would likely be highly motivated to see her fail. I can imagine coordinated efforts to trigger LB's most cherished triggerpoints, in order to make a repeat ban a fait accompli.
    For those who know me - which includes precisely zero people on WP, so it'll have to be taken on faith unfortunately - I am not a person inclined towards that kind of behavior. Nor, even if I were inclined, am I someone who would even know how such an effort would be organized and effected. My interests are far removed from that sort of brutish behavior. But I can imagine it.
    Likewise, I haven't the faintest idea how such efforts could be prevented. So, I'm stuck with having speculated about something that might never happen, or in fact may never have been considered, and I may be planting the seed by merely bringing it up. So, I've got that going for me too, unfortunately. Anastrophe (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't around for the original case and know next to nothing about the reasons for the original ban. But like others, I was curious about the blog and found it archived. I was surprised to see that she wrote a blog about her unsuccessful 2020 appeal, in which she reposted her email unban request and other correspondence with arbcom. Because I've read that, I can see how little the unban request changed between 2020 and 2022. Also, the blog expands on the reasons for the unban request and what she intended to edit and why. Given that the 2020 appeal was denied because of the blog, the fact that she then blogged about the denial suggests a real ... I can't think of the word for "lack of necessary change." Stubborness? WP:IDHT? In the 2020 appeal blog post, she defends herself by saying that her blog has only 230 readers, and that the information she posted about Wikipedia editors on the blog was available via Wikipedia history or Google. Talk about not getting it. And then the fact that the 2022 appeal is phrased so similar to the 2020 appeal tells me that little has changed in two years. The impression I get is that this is someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to fight a righteous war, a war that she is willing to fight even from exile. Oppose. Levivich😃 16:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a "no, never", but what would convince me that someone banned for years is ready to come back and will avoid areas of controversy and focus on copy editing and gnoming edits is if, during the years they were banned, they volunteered on another project where they showed they can avoid controversy and focus on copy editing and gnoming edits. I don't see anything in global contribs tho. The "probation" doesn't have to happen on this project. Levivich😃 13:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an unban under some trial arrangement. I interacted quite a bit with lightbreather quite a bit in a friendly way but then faded out because I decided that IMHO they were disingenuous and manipulative in an immensely clever and skilled way and so caution is in order. And I'm not familiar with the case which was later. But after that many years everybody deserves a chance. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know much about this person, but I do know something about toxic people. And listening to some folks I respect express their thoughts, that's exactly what this sounds like. Yes, that can get better. But IME it is generally best if they do so with a new set of friends. A) there are too many hard grudges that are very difficult for everyone to overcome and B) the cost of letting a toxic person back into your life can be very high indeed. If Wikipedia was their only option for interactions with people, maybe. But they can do things elsewhere (simple if nothing else), the world is wide. Hobit (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the unban: quite a bit of time has passed and the unban request is reasonable, as it acknowledges the past errors and presents a picture of how the editor plans to interact with the community if unbanned. Separately, I believe it's now also time for the project to acknowledge the past, shall we say, lax applications of its own civility guidelines.
For background, I came across the Lightbreather arbcom case after my own interactions with the WP:GUNS members; that's how I became aware of the discussion around the c-word in relation to a female editor. Here's the diff in question: ""just remember: she is a person who Cannot Understand Normal Thought". This was brought up, in part, on ANI thread: Personal attacks and incivility by User:Mike Searson, where the response from the community seems to have been -- so what? In another discussion involving Lightbreather, this was mentioned: "Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one". Source: AN thread.
There was a separate thread, also Lightbreather-related, that I recall where editor(s) argued that the c-word was okay because, I paraphrase, we use it a lot in the pubs in the UK. Etc. It's time to acknowledge the community errors as well and allow back an editor who, to my surprise, still wants to edit here, given their experience with toxicity on the project. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unban It's a long time ago, and when it all goes pear-shaped again, as it almost certainly will, you can just have endless reams of discussion about a reban. It's the wikipedia way. Yes, history is almost guaranteed to repeat itself, but think of the fun that can be had in the meantime... Begoon 13:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support temporary unban: I know Lightbreather primarily from Twitter but I think taking down the blog and being willing to undergo the other topic bans is a show of good faith. It's been a while. Let's give her an opportunity to show that she has changed. Also agree with K.e.coffman, mistakes have been made all around and it's worth acknowledging that as this discussion continues. Jessamyn (my talk page) 14:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unban per K.e.coffman. Bishonen | tålk 15:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose unban mostly per Dennis Brown and others. I don't find K.e.coffman's examples very persuasive, and the prospect of endless rounds of drama as Begoon mentions don't hold much appeal, either. I might consider a conditional return with a "one strike and you're gone" provision (with no 'until x time' provision attached), but I don't see any real appetite for that. Intothatdarkness 18:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unban Yes, there were things she did, which had better been left undone. BUT, she was also massively provoked. Having had a fair bit of nastiness myself (from this guy, among others, I know how extremely upsetting it can be. Now its time to move on, Huldra (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unban. There are many editors who are temperamentally unsuited to collaborating well with others, but they are given seemingly infinite chances to improve by this community, and I see nothing here that indicates to me this editor should not be given one of those chances as well. Gamaliel (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support provisional unban. I was not around for the original decision, but in line with RoySmith, if we cannot AGF after seven years, we have a problem. If ArbCom allows any uninvolved administrator to reinstate the cban, and this enforcement ability lasts until successfully appealed to ArbCom, I would be comfortable unbanning. I realize that a unilateral cban is harsh, but I believe that it is appropriate given the circumstances. HouseBlastertalk 03:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • God No, why is this even a question. Lightbreather has neither changed their politics or personality, as anyone who is familiar with their assorted writing can see. (Or rather could see until recently when they decided to hide it in the hopes people would forget.) The premise then is that they have somehow in the last few years managed to learn how to muzzle themselves and control their behaviour. That's just not credible. There is no AGF in place here. Unbanning them shows both contempt for their past victims and future ones when Lightbreather inevitably does what Lightbreather does. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would oppose an unban as I believe they are not temperamentally suited to Wikipedia and would be a net negative.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unban – rather than focus on past events, I choose to focus on the good an editor can bring to the table. We are only human, and we all make mistakes. The fact that Lightbreather took the initiative to come here, and openly express her regrets and good intentions in the manner in which she did speaks volumes to me. Perhaps a deeper understanding of what sexual harassment can do to a person would flip some of the opposes. Any form of harassment is unconscionable in my book. In the end, we are all just volunteers – from ArbCom on down through the ranks. As a human being passing judgment on another human being, a colleague if you will, I am of the mind that when we show our support and belief in what that person is telling us in an appeal, they will try harder to live up to our expectations. Atsme 💬 📧 14:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unban as per Dennis and SilkTork - I'm all for second chances and even third chances but IMHO they would just be wasted as they have done previously. Personally I feel Wikipedia is better off without LB. –Davey2010Talk 00:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unban. Per Huldra: time to move on. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unban per WP:ROPE. Most of the rationales for not unbanning could equally well have been applied to me when I requested to be unbanned. And yet, y'all unbanned me. Do I still cause/attract drama? Sure. There are some spots that don't change. But I don't think my drama-magnetism has necessarily made me a net-negative for the project. I'm sure there are others who disagree, but there we are. I am keenly aware of the WP:ROPE that follows me around. I'm sure LB will be too. Give her a chance. Maybe it won't work as has often been the case in other unbannings. But Wikipedia has been around long enough to provide instances that sometimes unbanning does work, and this seems as reasonable a possibility as in any other similar case we've encountered. jps (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unban. Per RoySmith seven years is a long time; her global contributions demonstrate the type of edits she's proposing to make if unblocked (21 Aug 2020 on Simple Wikipedia), including a productive gnome-edit to fix screaming red citation error without generating drama on a page arguably having drama potential. Barkeep49, 49 percent of her edits are in mainspace; she is a content-focused editor (i.e. "here to build the encyclopedia"). I suggest she endeavor to increase that percentage during the next 12 months by avoiding content edits that are likely to generate discussions. Ealdgyth, this is how she avoids harassment – if Lightbreather is harassed for fixing citations, spelling or grammar corrections, or no reason at all besides that she's editing in mainspace, I suggest that she avoid responding online – just email a good admin or two. I'd welcome such emails. Per Rhododendrites existing sanctions limit opportunities for further problematic behavior. I agree with Drmies' belief that the interest in rejoining us, and adhering to our policies and guidelines, is genuine. Dennis Brown, re: "I haven't seen many people who were known for drama come back and not cause drama. We don't change our spots." In March 2018 you indefinitely first-time-blocked an editor for tendentious editing. In June 2018 I unblocked him because "a nearly 3-month first block is of sufficient duration, and is well beyond the norm for a first block for tendentious editing." You disagreed with my unblock but let it stand. To date, your block and my unblock remain the only two actions in this block log. This editor has mellowed and I haven't noticed drama around him in a long time. Now, Lightbreather has a longer log and certainly a longer-term block was needed. But, in my judgement, it's been long enough. I don't follow the logic behind "this motion makes it too hard to re-impose a ban". This proposal doesn't prohibit any Arbitration Enforcement action that could be taken against any other editor to enforce any existing discretionary sanction – that includes gun control, gender, and politics. Lightbreather shouldn't be exempted from any discretionary sanction, but neither should an editor-specific discretionary sanction be implemented allowing any admin to dole out a ban as a discretionary sanction. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unban per K.e.coffman and Newyorkbrad, but I don't think people are fully putting two and two together. I was either not around or not paying attention to the original case, but I went back and looked at the original arbitration case from 2015, as well as the reporting about the case. It is not pleasant reading. A substantial amount of the "evidence" seems to consist of personal attacks and/or denials of facts anyone can verify for themselves. For instance, Ca2james wrote: "She continues to say that she was called a cunt when she was not (as is shown elsewhere), and this misrepresentation - the smallest word choice - is again typical of her battleground approach to conflict." I don't see any possible sense in which this can be construed as "misrepresentation" when there is verifiable evidence (linked by K.e.coffman upthread) that this happened, exactly as represented. (The UK vs. US issue is a red herring here, because what was claimed is that she was never called this at all.) The suggestion that pointing out a verifiable fact is evidence of a "battleground approach to conflict" is disturbing, as is the idea that pointing out or harboring resentment over what Newyorkbrad aptly described as "depraved, disturbing, and extreme" sexual harassment is off-limits. I apologize for re-litigating a comment from 2015, but it really seems like a certain perception has taken hold based on misleading statements and/or grudges, and become self-fulfilling, causing people to interpret benign actions as suspect with little to no solid reasoning besides "that's the way she is." Even here there are odd insinuations being made, like this comment by Sitush: "Is there any significance to her appeals coinciding with the summers of years of major elections in the US? Probably not, but it is a curious coincidence." It is indeed most likely a coincidence, as major elections take place in the United States every other year. (Notably, the original incident took place in the summer of 2015 with a one-year period before allowing an appeal -- which would make the earliest possible appeal date the summer of perhaps the most major US election in recent history. Yet from what I can tell, nothing seems to have happened then.) Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unban In the proceedings or previous issues is nice long doxxing attempts by LB only because I chose to contribute to WP on gun topics. She doesn't even address this. DHeyward (talk) 02:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the purpose of clarity because it has been mentioned on this page several times but with no actual details, the sexual harassment in Lightbreather's own words: "Ex-editor [name withheld], or someone with whom he shared a sex-dot-com account. And he/they posted porn pictures of at least a half-dozen different women whom he/they labelled as “Wikipedia editor Lightbreather “. So not only was it harassment of me, but also of those women, who probably had not consented to have their pictures used publicly – certainly not to harass other women!" I have removed the name because in the ArbCom case the Committee say: "The functionaries team reviewed evidence submitted about off-wiki sexual harassment of Lightbreather, but was unable to reach a consensus over whether or not it was sufficient to connect a Wikipedia editor to the harassment. The Wikimedia Foundation was kept fully informed throughout." Lightbreather was interviewed by The Atlantic, and the incident is described there: "She got into the habit of Googling her username, just in case. That’s how, earlier this year, a Wikipedia editor who goes by the username Lightbreather discovered that someone was posting images on a pornographic website and falsely claiming they were her. (The images were linked to her username; Lightbreather has been careful to make sure that no one on Wikipedia knows her real name.) A Google search of the poster’s username led her back to one of her fellow editors." SilkTork (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support unban As someone who's been banned, I know from personal experience that editors can and do change their ways and that whatever they did years ago is not in itself a reflection of who they are today and how they'll handle things going forward. Insofar, Lightbreather's appeal seems to address what got her in trouble with ArbCom to begin with. That being said, unbanning her with conditions (as what's being proposed) is a good call, both as a safety valve and to send a clear message that being allowed back is not amnesty and that unbans are (first and foremost) done with the stipulation that the unbanned editor must make good on their promise to not go back to their old ways. Getting unbanned is not a "get out of jail free" card, but more like a trial period and a chance to prove oneself. Seeing as the events took place seven years ago and given what she's said in her appeal, only time will tell if she's actually serious about changes to her behavior. She can always be re-banned if she goes back to the same old behavior, but if she stays on the right track even after the unban conditions have expired or been lifted, she'll be a welcome part of the community. I think with the necessary precautions and enough safety valves in place that giving her another chance won't be a biggie, while still at the same time still taking it serious if she does go back on her word or falls back into old habits.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 07:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised to read the note posted by SilkTork above for "clarity". I'm not sure how much that actually clears things up. Per finding of fact 2.1 the functionaries were unable to reach a consensus over whether or not Lightbreather's evidence was sufficient to connect an editor with certain harassment. Per finding of fact 3.8 there was "a history of bad blood" between Lightbreather and another editor. On 2 November 2015, ~3 1⁄2 months after Lightbreather's case closed (17 July 2015), WMFOffice placed a Global Ban on that editor. Did the functionaries come to any new consensus after Lightbreather's case closed? Can they confirm or deny any connection? Lacking confirmation or denial, some of us may draw our own conclusions. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather&oldid=1131471342"