Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MJL (talk | contribs) at 16:29, 21 September 2022 (→‎Conduct in deletion-related editing RfC: enact). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Motion name Date posted
Lightbreather unban appeal 8 September 2022
Conduct in deletion-related editing RfC 21 September 2022

Motions

Lightbreather unban appeal

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

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)

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 1 arbitrator abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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)

  • 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)

  • 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]

Conduct in deletion-related editing RfC

In order to reaffirm the independence of the RfC authorized by the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, and to ratify the moderators' decision to hold two sequential RfCs, Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") is amended as follows:

  • The second point is amended to read as follows: "The moderator(s), with community feedback, will be responsible for developing the questions presented. The moderator(s) may decide to split the questions over two sequential requests for comment; in the event that they choose to do so, the closing panel will close both RfCs. In the event that a member of the closing panel is no longer available to close the second request for comment, that member will be replaced by the Arbitration Committee upon request."
  • The sixth point is amended to read as follows: "Any appeals of a moderator decision or of the panel close may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The community retains the ability to amend the outcomes of the RfC through a subsequent community-wide request for comment."

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support
  1. Proposed. This motion does two things:
    First, it acknowledges and ratifies the authority of the moderators to hold two RfCs and provides for the closing panel to stay in place unless otherwise requested by a panel member. We did not have enough volunteers to fill two closing panels, but we recognize that closing two RfCs is more than the closing panel members agreed to, so hopefully this motion means we have enough people without forcing anyone to stay on to fill a role they didn't expect to have to fill. I personally would not have held two separate RfCs, but it is the decision that the moderators reached, and it seems like it would be very disruptive to require only one RfC now, after much has been discussed on that assumption.
    Second, the motion reaffirms that the RfC's results can be modified by the community in a future RfC and removes ArbCom's exclusive role over WP:CLOSECHALLENGEs. These points were raised at WT:ACN. The RfC results could always have been amended by further RfC, but it doesn't hurt to clarify it explicitly. And I don't feel strongly about ArbCom's ability to hear CLOSECHALLENGEs, but it seems important to others in the community; personally, I have every confidence in the appointed closers and am not concerned about the possibility of a disputed close. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure. --Izno (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. Enterprisey (talk!) 14:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely. Cabayi (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 20:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Clarifies things we've said elsewhere. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I opposed this remedy upfront (for reasons I gave in the case), and although I don't object to the change I would rather not support the RfC retroactively. WormTT(talk) 14:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse
  1. Recuse I am involved in the RfC. - Donald Albury 18:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by arbitrators

Community comments

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions&oldid=1111557733"