Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather

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

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [10]

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Site-ban

• 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

• 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

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

• Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff

Information about amendment request

• Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate)

• Remove Iban sanction.

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

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

@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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

• I've cleaned up some formatting issues with this request --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

• 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. Worm^TT(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. Katie^talk 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Done. Thanks. Katie^talk 17:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

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. Katie^talk 01:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply
   • Changed 'vacated' to 'rescinded' per Rob's suggestion. Elegance, y'all. ;-) Katie^talk 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. Worm^TT(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. :-) Katie^talk 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

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. Worm^TT(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

   Katie^talk 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. Worm^TT(talk) 08:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
7. Procedurally, as I have moved to close with the view that this cannot pass. –xeno^talk 15:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
8. Per all the above. Katie^talk 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

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. Worm^TT(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. Katie^talk 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. Worm^TT(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. Katie^talk 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. Worm^TT(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. Katie^talk 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

• 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. Worm^TT(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. Katie^talk 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. Worm^TT(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. Katie^talk 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. Worm^TT(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. Katie^talk 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. Worm^TT(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. Katie^talk 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

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

Draft wording for notice:

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. –xeno^talk 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

• 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. Worm^TT(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. Worm^TT(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. Katie^talk 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. Worm^TT(talk) 08:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, I read them as riders requiring an unban to be effective. –xeno^talk 12:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) (I've made that explicit)Reply

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. Worm^TT(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. Worm^TT(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. –xeno^talk 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. –xeno^talk 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 . –Davey2010^Talk 17:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply