Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:19, 25 May 2015

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Behavior during a case may be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Case management

Lightbreather's case

Because of the unusual number of participants with i-bans in this case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements will apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

Roger Davies ^talk

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Motion to Recuse

Lightbreather has been informed that after extensive discussion by the committee there was no consensus that Salvio should recuse. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am very disturbed that Salvio giuliano has not recused. He issued a bad block that "not supported by consensus of the oversight-l team".[1] Per Ironholds: Wow; this is a tremendously inappropriate block, regardless of the merits, for Salvio to be making. Salvio: your many comments about Lightbreather over an extremely long period demonstrate that there is no way you are uninvolved enough to make a call here. [2] Salvio has made numerous personal attacks on Lighbreather. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] I remind the committee the Arbitrators are expected to act with integrity and good faith at all times. I do not expect that Salvio will materially affect the outcome of the case, but the whole purpose of recusal is to maintain the community's trust in the integrity of the Arbitration process. I would therefore ask for the Committee to recuse Salvio. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

The committee is currently discussing it, and will issue a ruling on the matter. LFaraone 04:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ironholds:It's not the case that the Oversighters decided the block was incorrect. The feeling was that the block for made for the wrong reason (ie it was felt that the text was not oversightable), not that the block should never have been made, and the decision to unblock immediately was not a decision by the Oversighters. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

What User:Hawkeye7 pointed out is not a personal attacks. Lightbreather was caught lying twice, that's not a personal attack that is facts. I'm perfectly content with Salvio on the case as he is the counterweight to User:Gorilla Warfare. All of those comments deal with administrative actions and purely administrative actions do not make a person involved. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming those of us who are i-banned will be allowed to address and refer to each other in this case's proceedings, I would like to ask: Is the workshop page the place for i-banned people to throw about their opinions about their fellow banned editors? If Hell in a Bucket wants to say such things, shouldn't he go to the evidence page and make a statement there? If this is an acceptable place to do what he did above, I'd like the opportunity to join in. Lightbreather (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am not familiar with the workings of whatever is going on here, but, based upon the diffs submitted above, Mr. Salvio should recuse himself. Otherwise, he should be excused from service. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is frankly kind of astonishing, and comes on the back of Lightbreather asking for the same thing (and receiving the message "no" for her troubles). If Salvio were ignorant of this issue, I'd get it, but it was explicitly brought up less than a week ago in relation to his OS block of Lightbreather, and the oversighters decided his block was incorrect. Now, either it's sheer coincidence that a bad call was made around someone everyone except Salvio thought he was too involved to be going near, or it's not. But for safety's sake, opt towards removing the possibility entirely. I can't believe Salvio would be so incredibly vital to a committee with a membership in two digits that they couldn't survive not having him around for one week. Ironholds (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dougweller: thanks for the clarification; my point, though, was "Salvio made the wrong call there". That he made the wrong call in evaluating the content is...more of an argument, not less. Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Esquivalience

Comment by others:

Couldn't agree more. Being a male DOES NOT make you a better person, contributor etc and being female does not grant special privileges or exceptions. I think that each editor should be judged by their content not their age, gender or sexual orientations Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider all edits

13) All edits, good or disruptive, should be considered in arbitration cases, as discounting good-faith edits amounts to "cherrypicking".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Err not sure still o9n the parties issues but I agree that all edits should be considered. Outside of rare cases there is nobody that only adds bad edits. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

User:Lightbreather/ACK2

1) The page above, does indicate a degree of accountability for Lightbreather's actions, and should not be discounted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Comment by others:

I agree coordination should be avoided. I think it is unrealistic to think that people don't talk to their "friend" editors but where is that line and how can it be proved? I think it's a principle that can't be enforced. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that people may talk to friends about Wikipedia and that's where the "unavoidable and generally appropriate" part comes in. However, the crux of this principle is when off-wiki communication occurs that would otherwise be very inappropriate on-wiki. Mike V • Talk 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off-wiki conduct

2) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I can agree with this finding. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

3) Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an invasion of privacy and is always unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Lightbreather

1) Lightbreather engaged in the posting of non-public information off-wiki. The information made available resulted in the harassment of another individual. Lightbreather's actions demonstrated that she was aware of the possible consequences.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

During this case I submitted no evidence privately to the committee alone. I did submit evidence to functionaries-en, as noted on the evidence talk page, so I'm assuming that is what Mike V is referring to (since he has CU/OS permission and is therefore a functionaries-en member). The list of evidence was preceded by this simple statement, The following info is all publicly available.

All of the evidence was available via a simple google search, and no membership logins were involved to see it. What Mike V has written here is untrue. Lightbreather (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Per evidence submitted privately to the Committee. Mike V • Talk 05:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have here is that there are issues that are happening on Wiki and off. Most notably the incident in Dec that was targeting an editor and their family that required oversight. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather, the outing policy clearly states, Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Mike V • Talk 16:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike V if the nature of the emails you are referring to is the recent oversightable events it's hardly fair to pillory LB over a private email with that info. In my view that would have been the only way to appropriately address this situation to the degree it should be. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike V, is this about the allegation that someone posted porn photos and claimed they were LB? I'm confused about that claim and how certain it is, and also unsure what I can ask about it on WP. If it's true, action should be taken against that editor. WP:OUTING says: "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case by case basis." Did LB do something beyond that? Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to speak any further to the specifics of what may or may not have occurred as the topic matter seems to be making Lightbreather uncomfortable. However, I feel that the evidence I've submitted to the Committee supports these findings. I'll leave them to decide. Mike V • Talk 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Lightbreather strongly admonished

1) Lightbreather is strongly admonished to adhere diligently to the harassment and outing policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Initially I was considering to propose a ban. However, looking through previous cases shows that admonishments were issued for situations comparable to the one I have presented to the Committee. (e.g. Russavia, Vlad Fedorov) With that being said, I understand that this is only one facet of the conduct being examined and that any final decision will be based upon the cumulative findings. Mike V • Talk 05:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a site ban should not be our first choice here. I think there is other ways to handle this short of banning. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 347: / Line 347: @@
 :'''Comment by others:'''
 ::I agree coordination should be avoided. I think it is unrealistic to think that people don't talk to their "friend" editors but where is that line and how can it be proved? I think it's a principle that can't be enforced. [[User:Hell in a Bucket|Hell in a Bucket]] ([[User talk:Hell in a Bucket|talk]]) 17:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
+:::I understand that people may talk to friends about Wikipedia and that's where the "unavoidable and generally appropriate" part comes in. However, the crux of this principle is when off-wiki communication occurs that would otherwise be very inappropriate on-wiki. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> [[User:Mike V|<b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b>]] • [[User_talk:Mike V|<b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b>]]</span> 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 ====Off-wiki conduct====
 ) A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Wikipedia or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.
@@ Line 392: / Line 392: @@
 :::{{U|Mike V}}, is this about the allegation that someone posted porn photos and claimed they were LB? I'm confused about that claim and how certain it is, and also unsure what I can ask about it on WP. If it's true, action should be taken against that editor. [[WP:OUTING]] says: "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case by case basis." Did LB do something beyond that? [[User:SlimVirgin|Sarah (SV)]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</sup></small> 17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
+::::I don't wish to speak any further to the specifics of what may or may not have occurred as the topic matter seems to be making [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop&diff=663974547&oldid=663972235 Lightbreather uncomfortable]. However, I feel that the evidence I've submitted to the Committee supports these findings. I'll leave them to decide. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> [[User:Mike V|<b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b>]] • [[User_talk:Mike V|<b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b>]]</span> 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 ===Proposed remedies===
 <small>''Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.''</small>