Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)
Target dates: Opened 3 May 2015 • Evidence closes 24 May 2015 • Workshop closes 7 June 2015 • Proposed decision to be posted 26 June 2015 Case clerks: L235 (Talk) & Liz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Doug Weller (Talk) & Roger Davies (Talk) & Euryalus (Talk) |
Case management
Contents
- 1 Case management
- 2 Preliminary statements by non-party editors
- 3 Evidence presented by Black Kite
- 4 Evidence presented by Karanacs
- 5 Evidence presented by Lightbreather
- 6 Lightbreather's first evidence (restored)
- 7 Evidence presented by doncram
- 8 Evidence presented by Gaijin42
- 9 Evidence presented by Capeo
- 10 Evidence presented by Faceless Enemy
- 10.1 (Request) Statement by Faceless Enemy
- 10.2 Lightbreather has engaged in canvassing
- 10.3 Lightbreather has engaged in article ownership
- 10.4 Lightbreather has disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point
- 10.5 Lightbreather has edit warred without even reading the content she was edit warring over
- 10.6 Lightbreather considers her own opinion to be equal to that of several editors
- 10.7 Lightbreather alleges socking in bad faith
- 10.8 Lightbreather is either incompetent or edits in bad faith
- 10.9 Lightbreather has engaged in general battleground conduct
- 10.10 Reply to Lightbreather's evidence
- 11 Evidence presented by Scalhotrod
- 12 Evidence presented by Hell in a Bucket
- 13 Evidence presented by Drmies
- 14 Evidence presented by Ca2james
- 15 Evidence presented by Chess
- 16 Evidence presented by Carrite
- 17 Evidence presented by SlimVirgin
- 18 Evidence presented by {your user name}
Preliminary statements by non-party editors
These are the initial case statements by non-party editors. Do not edit or amend them. Preliminary statements are not included in evidence length, Roger Davies talk 09:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
(Request) Statement by GoodDay
Having gone through it myself, I'm not keen on seeing an editor taken to Arbitration. Perhaps the IBANS will suffice. PS- Wikipedia would be better served if we all view editors as neutral gender. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
(Request) Statement by Ched
Without a doubt, this case needs to see the light of day. If this Arbcom truly is about finding what is best for en.wiki, then you damn well need to view this. — Ched : ? 02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
@Euryalus: if the committee feels that the person that's bringing the case has no grounds, then I offer to bring it. — Ched : ? 04:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
(Request) Statement by Carrite
This individual "retired" right ahead of the Gender Gap Task Force Case and "unretired" right after the close, thereby neatly escaping scrutiny. It might be time. Carrite (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
(Request) Statement by John Carter
Libhtbreather has recently displayed, as per the "retirement"/socking mentioned above, a serious tendency to attempt to game the system, in addition to other problematic behavior. Considering the GAMEing probably falls outside of the i-bans, and is itself a serious issue, even without the remarkably high number of i-bans this individual seems to have accumulated, I think that there is sufficient basis for thinking ArbCom should review the behavior of those involved in this case. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
(Request) Note from Floq
Sooner rather than later, a clerk may want to let Lightbreather know about the 500 word limit, and about how most evidence should be saved for the evidence page if a case is accepted. She's already at 250% of the 500 word limit, and has provided evidence on only two of the 9 people that are parties or that she wants to add as parties. I don't know how you're going to handle the volume of evidence that is going to want to be provided on the evidence page, but I guess you can cross that bridge when you come to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Four minutes?! That's impressive. I didn't know I had that kind of power. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
(Request) Statement by Mark Miller
I support accepting this case as there is clearly sufficient history for concern and a number of issues brought up above that are a bit distressing to hear. And that's a lot of Ibans.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
(Request) Statement by Fae
"Battleground mentality" is manageable by other community processes. I am puzzled as to why Arbcom is keen to accept this case rather than leaving resolution to an open consensus, and the trusted users that have sufficient tools to handle this without a burdensome case. The GGTF case was not healthy for the community, this request touches some of the same sore points. Low key procedures and encouragement for improved collegiate behaviour from all parties would be a refreshing change from high profile cases and indefinite sanctions that will appear punitive to the outside viewer.
As the case is certain to be accepted, in considering actions, I hope Arbcom sees the wisdom of delegating to the wider community. --Fæ (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
Evidence presented by Black Kite
Canvassing at GGTF
I've no interest in this case, but I thought that this bit of canvassing by User:SlimVirgin might be worth mentioning. At other discussions (i.e. AfD) we would take this into account. A somewhat stupid thing to do, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Karanacs
These are the initial case statements by parties. Do not edit or amend them. The preliminary statement is not included in evidence lengths, Roger Davies talk 09:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
(Request) Statement by Karanacs
Lightbreather is currently a party to 4 interaction bans (mutual with Hell in a Bucket [1] and Eric Corbett [2], Mike Searson cannot interact with her [3], and she cannot interact with Sitush [4]), and over the last year she has proposed two more (Two kinds of pork [5] and Scalhotrod)[6]), and had an earlier voluntary mutual Iban from (former editor Sue Rangell).
I believe these were necessitated because Lightbreather edits with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, forum-shops/canvasses, and refuses to examine her own behavior. Recent examples:
- Ownership / admin-shopping
- 31 Mar initiated an ANI asking an admin to stop others from editing articles until her injury healed [7]
- Baiting/Battleground
LB is still upset over a comment made by Eric Corbett in July 2014 (see Feb 20 diff below). 26 Apr
- discussion at AN on whether LB should be topic-banned from gun control
- LB went to Eric's page to follow Sitush, ABFing that Sitush would be talking about her. [12]. "you were getting over stimulated.... I've learned that when this happens, you might be talking about me on Eric's page - risky as it is for him""
- [13] Responds to 3-week-old comments with the edit summary "Do you people never tire of self-congratulation?". Original comments were an observation that the KaffeeKlatsch was essentially defunct.[14] LB's post was a defense of the KaffeeKlatsch in the form of an attack on those opposed.
- When he didn't respond immediately, she tried again [15]
- [16] "When you start discussions here - which is what we call these things with headers on talk pages - you know full well that your watchers are gonna come along and stroke your ego and you'll all lift your virtual pints and say "Hurrah!" or "Good on ya!" or whatever the hell you say, and speak poorly of your enemies (or the insects or rejects or however you think of us)."
- Refusal to accept warnings
- 26 Apr I explained why I considered her actions baiting. Her responses were to point at others: [17][18][19]
- (LB barely edited in March)
- 26 Feb When caught canvassing, speculated others were doing it [20]
- 20 Feb When asked to strike a personal attack, she tried to justify the attack [21] and referred to a 7-month-old comment that Eric made
- 12 Feb [22] implies she is warned because of sexism
When an editor gathers that many interaction bans, their behavior should be examined to determine whether there is a larger problem. I ask that those under Ibans with her be allowed to give a statement and/or evidence in this case.
@GorillaWarfare, I do not believe it is necessary to add other named parties. The specific interactions have been examined by the community, which has imposed - or declined to impose - interaction bans. The primary question is whether this series of Ibans, combined with other behavior, shows a pattern of misbehavior or not. Evidence about the behavior of others can be added as mitigating factors for LB's conduct without them being named as parties. If other parties are added, I request the list be limited to only those with an active Iban with LB, and that the scope is narrowed to only their interactions with LB. I do not want to see this case devolve into discussing how user:XYZ acted with user:ABC or on topic:DEF that was not directly related to Lightbreather. Karanacs (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare, the pattern of misbehavior of other editors would likely extend beyond the areas in which Lightbreather has edited, and, as such, a separate case for each of those editors, if necessary, would seem more appropriate. Her behavior is not confined neatly to a single topic area, which would seem to make it difficult to define a narrow enough case unless it is focused on LB and her interactions. The more parties are added, the longer the case will likely take, and that seems unfair to LB, who will be editing under a cloud in the meantime. However, you all have more experience at this than I - I trust you can find a workable definition. Karanacs (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lightbreather exhibits a battleground mentality, indulges in WP:POINTy behavior, forum-shops, attempts to silence critics. Karanacs (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Example 1: Jan 2015 - Editor Retention
Summary: Forum-shopping, WP:Battleground, silencing critics
- WikiProject Editor Retention discussion - brainstorming strategies
- 24 Jan: Lightbreather posts loaded question [23] "how many women have been involved in these discussions?"
- Conversation shifts to gender. LB pings 7 women.[24]
- Eric Corbett warns that this project should not follow the path of the GGTF [25].
- LB remark to Eric's comments [26] "I don't care how gifted someone is intellectually, if they don't know how to work with other people without alienating them, they are not good editors."
- LB requests admin help to remove Eric's comments [27]
- Rejected [28]
- LB reopens it [29]
- Request closed as already answered [32]
- 25 Jan
- LB opens Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160#Eric_Corbett
- Eric resigns from Editor Retention [33] because LB had turned discussion to gender gap
- At ARE, most admins weighing in say the violation is technical only; Sandstein issues a 72-hr block
- Some go to Sandstein's talk page to protest the block. LB posts same quotes by EC [34]
- LB gives Sandstein the Admin's Barnstar [35]
- LB posts 7-month-old quotes from Eric (out of context and unrelated to this issue) at her own talk page [36], Eric's talk page [37], WikiProject Editor Retention [38], ANI [39]
- on her own user page, (26 Jan) requests adminhelp to get ANI thread about Eric closed [40] and (29 Jan) to refactor someone else's comments on Sandstein's talk [41] because "I really don't like these rumors about me baiting EC".
Karanacs (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Example 2: Jul/Sep 2014 - Scalhotrod
Summary: WP:Battleground, wikistalking, forum-shopping, WP:Point, attempt to silence critics
3 Jul 2014 - LB says Scal has no respect for women because he edits porn articles [42]
12 Jul - Both topic-banned for edit warring [43]
27 Jul - LB joins GGTF [44]
28 Jul
- 16:01 [45] complains to admin about Scal
- 17:34 Scalhotrod joins GGTF [46]
- 18:07 [47] follows him to another user talk page with accusations of impropriety
- 19:44 LB opens ANI against Scalhotrod [48]
- 19:57 ANI closed by Hell in a Bucket as forum-shopping [49]
- [50] complains to another admin
-
- 21:48 As the talk page conversation continues, [51] Could you tell Scal, on his talk page, to stay off mine? I cannot promise to stay off his, because I check it once a week or so to see if he's talking about me. ... I will not tolerate being gossiped about.... Also, can you ask him to leave the Gender Gap project?
29 Jul
- [52] posts to Jimbo's talk page
31 Jul
- Announces she left GTTF because of Scalhotrod/repeats allegation he does not respect women: [53] and accuses him of Wikihounding [54]
1 Aug
- LB joins WikiProject Pornography [55], where Scalhotrod has been highly active
17 Sep
22 Sep 2014
- [58] opens ANI on Scalhotrod
-
- Proof: [59] joining GTTF, editing WP:NPA, Meta edit, his talk (28 Jul), Sue Rangell's talk
23 Sep 2014
- [60] Re Scal: "I have an overriding reason - and just the one - for keeping an eye on your talk page: because you have a history of talking about me and of accusing me of policy violations "
24 Sep 2014
- LB pings 3 specific admins to ANI [61]
- [62] "I would be happy to leave WP:PORN if Scal will leave WP:GGTF."
-
- Of her own actions, LB says that [63], "twist[ing] one instance of joining a project that someone else belongs to into an instance of stalking is distraction."
25 Sep 2014
- [64] Admits Scal was first editor at an article she said he stalked her to
28 Sep 2014
- started RFCU on him (deleted - Note the stated goal)
21 Jan 2015
- Requests Iban in unrelated ARE thread [65]
Karanacs (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Example 3: Gun control Feb/Apr 2015
Summary: Casting aspersions, attempts to silence critical voices, forum-shopping, ownership, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
- 1 Feb 2015 files SPI against Faceless Enemy [66].
- 9 Feb
beginning 19 Apr 2015
- Insinuates sockpuppetry on article talk [70]
- Response: go to SPI [71]
- LB continues on article talk [72] and user talk [73] (email [74]), and pings arbs/CU [75]
- Discussion hatted [76]
- LB unhats her insinuations [77]; reverts the reversion [78]
- Protect article at her preferred version [79]
- Invites arbs/CU to weigh in on which version should be protected [80][81][82]
- Uninvolved user brought this to AN [83] - no result (LB blocked and then Arb case opened)
Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
May:
Karanacs (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This case has been a great example of Lightbreather's interactions with others. On this and the talk page, she has displayed an attitude that the ends justify the means - that if she could only prove that she's right, then her tactics should be overlooked. She has attempted to discredit those who disagree, deliberately misinterprets or misrepresents the words of others even when repeatedly corrected, has shown a severe lack of understanding of the very policies that she cites as proof of the misconduct of others, frequently casts aspersions, and has refused to drop the stick. Gun control, GGTF, user talk pages, and now Arbcom - her behavior is consistent. Karanacs (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Battleground attitude selected examples
- gender
- 28 Apr 2015 [90]; edit summary bad attitude" in man = ok. "bad attitude" in woman = NOT ok. man is assertive and complains, same behavior in woman is bitchy and nagging. (posted in response to (self-professed female) Bishonen, who had posted a rebuke to Eric [91] earlier in that conversation.)
- 12 Feb [92] canvassing is acceptable for an MFD because of the gender gap
- 24 Jan [93] should a man have asked the question
- 21 Jan 2015 [94] considering that I am a woman in a man's world (Wikipedia), and that for millenia women have learned to grin and bear it in response to aggressive male behavior
- Dec 2014 [95]
- 28 Jul 2014 [96] As a 55-year-old woman, I know what harassment is,
- 24 Jul 2014 [97] brings up her gender and sexism in a conversation that has nothing to do with either
- Eric Corbett
LB posts Eric's July 2014 comments all over
- On her user page [98] Removed (after I added this to my dispute resolution sandbox) [99] edit summary not now
- 20 Feb: [100]
- 21 Jan: [101]
- Other
Lightbreather has removed her initial evidence, but I found her original claims to be enlightening. [102] Among other tidbits, I was accused of "currying favor" for teasing Eric Corbett (with whom I've frequently collaborated) while asking him to look at an article, and she highlighted words from a templated message about an MFD to imply that I was hiding something(?), and confuses my statements about behavior with a judgment about the editor (her). I realize that Arb proceedings are anxiety-provoking by very definition, but this lack of AGF for some of those statements is seen often in LB's editing, and, I believe, is a core cause of her belief that she is being targeted.
Evidence presented by Lightbreather
(Request) Statement by Lightbreather
These are the initial case statements by parties. Do not edit or amend them. The preliminary statement is not included in evidence lengths, Roger Davies talk 09:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
There are behaviors that need examination - as amendments to the Gun control and GGTF ArbComs. Edits that Karanacs gave, and that I give below, are mostly within the focus/locus of those cases. Please add the following as involved parties. --Lightbreather (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
1. EChastain
- Involvement in focus of GGTF ArbCom on her talk page,[103][104] and Mansplaining article/talk,[105] including warring with EvergreenFir at the article.[106]
(30 July 2014 Coincidence? One week before Sue Rangell quit editing articles last August, EvergreenFir undid[107] an addition that Sue made to Culture of Japan.) - Between Oct-Nov 2014 she made 16 comments on the GGTF main case talk page, 15 comments in the workshop, and 24 on the GGTF PD talk pages, including...
- 29 November 2014 Eight weeks after case was opened, and three days before it closed - started Neotarf started this whole thing by spamming Hell In the Bucket's original post - resulting in this arbitration.
- Opposed WikiWomen project (mentions GGTF with her vote)[108] and monitored[109] the Kaffeeklatsch for women.
- Nov 2014 Casting asperions.
- Mar 2015 Personal attack (in ES and discussion).
--Lightbreather (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
2. Eric Corbett
- Violated topic ban: [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115].
- 11 Jan 2015 Canvassing (campaigning).
- Casting aspersions: [116], [117], [118]
- Jan 2015 Joined in personal attack.
- Feb 2015 Baiting, and violating topic ban.
- WP:ARE cases since ArbCom:
- 25 Jan 2015 Blocked for 48h, violating a topic ban.
- 28 Jan 2015 Request declined.
- 7 Feb 2015 Request declined.
- 27 Feb 2015 Blocked for 72h, violating a topic ban.
- 28 Apr 2015 IBAN
3. Faceless Enemy - February 2015 SPI No action. Editing history is inconsistent, and he's focused on gun control since his return to active editing in January. Twelve days after Gun show loophole was nominated for GA,[119] he proposed merging Universal background check into it[120] - though the same proposal had been discussed recently. At National Rifle Association, he engaged in warring (with me) over its Finances section.[121][122] Nutshell: Four pro-gun editors were topic banned from gun-control at ArbCom last year. All engaged in battleground conduct and one was known to sock. Arbitrator analysis is warranted. --Lightbreather (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Removed by a clerk. You may contest by email. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
5. Hell in a Bucket: WP:BATTLEGROUND,[123] (WP:PA, WP:BAITING) WP:INCIVILITY,[124] (gravedancing) WP:FORUM,[125][126] (WP:ASPERSIONS) WP:PNB,[127][128] WP:ARBPOL.[129] Presents himself and others as "defenders of the wiki." [130][131]
6. Scalhotrod I was not involved in the Gun control or the GGTF ArbComs. In fact, my only direct connection was the ArbCom Enforcement about Gun Control that LB brought against me.... 19:15, 30 April 2015
Gun control
- Edit history shows long involvement in gun-related editing, especially in months around and since GC ArbCom.
- Jan 2014? Mentioned in GC ArbCom Evidence presented by Gothean
- 6 May 2014 Coached on his talk page by GC topic-banned editor in dispute he (Scalhotrod) was having with me.
- 8 May 2014 Statement by Scalhotrod
- 6 Nov 2014 Broke our GC topic ban.
- 15 Dec 2014 Told an admin he was pro-gun (topic ban was still in force).
- 4 Feb 2015 Suggested creating a "Gun politics task force" (GPTF) "similar in nature to how the GGTF is setup".
GGTF
- 28 Jul 2014 Joined GGTF 38 hours after I did.[132] See Departed member explains, in her own words
- 14 Oct 2014 Mentioned in my evidence at GGTF ARCA.
- 14 Oct 2014 I ask the arbiters to please to remove mention of me from this proceeding in the above referenced.... One of seven comments to evidence talk page.
- 4 Feb 2015 Mentioned in EChastain's statement at GGTF ARCA.
- 6 Feb 2015 Mentioned three times in Karanacs' statement at GGTF ARCA.
30 Apr 2015 Advised Faceless Enemy, upon advice of Karanacs, that he was going to "speak up right away" and ask to excuse himself from this RFAR.
7. Sitush
8. Sue Rangell
Questions/replies to arbitrators
Euryalus Lodged in anger and haste would be closer to my meaning, but I am going to bed soon. Lightbreather (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
My original response to the evidence against me was to try to defend each diff, but that only feeds my critics' narratives. The fact is, I am a good editor who edits in contentious areas: gun-control and gender-related. It is clear from my edit history that I work hard to be civil with everyone. Do I sometimes get snappy? Yes. But the difference between myself and other editors whom I've worked with in these areas is that, more often than not, I apologize after I've been less than civil. Nonetheless, because I have butted heads with some outspoken editors and admins, I believe what has happened with me is POV railroading. The pro-gun editors allege that I am a gun-control "pusher," when in fact I only wish to balance articles that give the pro-gun POV undue weight, often using poor quality sources. Eric Corbett supporters claim I am a "militant feminist" and that I'm out to get EC. Both of those claims are exaggerated, too. I'm just a plain feminist, and I'm not out to get EC - though I do want to see civility policies enforced, especially no personal attacks. I don't believe any editor on Wikipedia should be able to call other editors "cunts," or similarly obscene names that are not allowed in the average, English-speaking workplace.
Rather than focus on the cherry-picked diffs, misrepresentations, and not AGF speculation about my editing, here is some evidence that I am an asset to the project.
Content
Forty-six percent of my edits to date are to the mainspace.[133] (The percentage has been higher.) I've created 35 articles: [134]. I have been especially good at improving source citations: finding needed ones, fixing dead urls, formatting using WP:CS1, adding missing authors, dates, etc.
- Edit summary search, articles, "improve": [135].
- Edit summary search, articles, "cs1": [136].
- Edit summary search, articles, "fix": [137].
- Helped newbie editor Darknipples take the topic of gun show loophole from this pro-gun POV "Controversies" section in Gun shows in the United States to an article that may be ready (at least as of March 26) for GA (a rare thing among gun-control articles).
Thanks
I am a thankful editor. As of 30-April-2015, I had sent 465 thank-you notifications to dozens of editors.[138]
- Edit summary search, "thank you": [139]. Edit summary search, "thanks": [140]. Edit summary search, "thx": [141].
- I am One of Many: 20-Jan-2014.
- ANGELUS: 14-Jan-2014.
- Drmies: 15-Oct-2013.
- StarryGrandma: 10-Oct-2013.
- Cullen328: 2-Oct-2013.
- North8000: 20-Aug-2013.
Collaboration and compromise
When there is a dispute, I try to collaborate and offer compromises.
- Scalhotrod: 16-May-2014, 21-May-2014, 11-Jul-2014.
- Eleutheria Sleuth: 14-May-2014.
- Capitalismojo: 16-Jan-2014.
- Federal Assault Weapons Ban editors: 27-Sep-2013.
Welcome and help
I try to identify, welcome, and help new editors.
- Vhernandez20, 31-Mar-2015.
- Nishitatanwar, 25-Mar-2015, 20-Apr-2015.
- Hga, 11-Mar-2015.
- HughD, 9-Mar-2015, 10-Mar-2015, 10-Mar-2015.
- Darknipples, 23-Jun-2014, 25-Jun-2014, 26-Jun-2014, 5-Jul-2014.
- Eleutheria Sleuth, 14-May-2014.
Respectful requests
When I request something of other editors, I try to be fair and respectful.
- Sitush: 15-Feb-2015
- Eric Corbett: 26-Jul-2014.
- Sue Rangell: 1-Sep-2013, 31-Oct-2013.
- Federal Assault Weapons Ban editors: 5-Sep-2013.
- Anastrophe, 12-Aug-2013.
Apologies
I apologize when I make mistakes or behave poorly.
- Edit summary search, "apolog": [142]. Edit summary search, "sorry": [143].
- To Drmies: 13-May-2015 (second paragraph)
- To Elockid: 26-Jan-2015
- To Tlhslobus: 18-Sep-2014
- To Mark Miller: 29-Jul-2014
- To Anythingyouwant: 18-Apr-2014
- To GregJackP: 18-Sep-2013
- To Sue Rangell: 17-Sep-2013
- To Anastrophe: 20-Aug-2013, 2-Sep-2013
--Lightbreather (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Sitush's behavior
Of the other editors whom I asked to have added as involved parties most have had evidence provided, by others and by themselves, to merit attention - with the exception of Sitush. Because he was mentioned once by Capeo[144] and three times by Karanacs[145] before 10:55 8-May-2015 UTC, I include the following.
Un-WP:CIVIL, assumes bad WP:FAITH, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:PERSONAL attacks, WP:HOUNDING, and WP:SOAP.
1st interaction with me: A 400-word speech.[146] [minimized my fears]
29-Jul-2014 Please will someone call me a cunt to make me feel better. [Drmies TP, 5 days after I was called a cunt]
Sep-2014 Started an article on an editor he had a dispute with. An MfD about the article shows that the editor considered it harassment, as did numerous other editors.
Since GGTF ArbCom closed:
- 2-Dec-2014 ...almost certainly on a scale that is unimaginable to you. [my TP, uninvited]
- 2-Feb-2015 350 words, no diffs.
- 13-Feb-2015 ... you miss the elephant in the room. [my TP, uninvited]
- 13-Feb-2015 Jimbo's opinion carries no more weight than that of the many other people whom you have canvassed.... [Jimbo's TP, uninvited]
- 14-Feb-2015 Just more disingenuous forum shopping, I guess.... [Jimbo's TP]
- 20-Feb-2015 ... that sort of comment ... like gravedancing. You've done it before.... [my TP, uninvited]
- 2-Mar-2015 [Ched's TP discussion "Lightbreather", uninvited]
- 26-Apr-2015 LB, are you hallucinating? .... [Eric's TP, uninvited]
- 28-Apr-2015 IBAN me and I am gone. [to Roger Davies]
Regarding that last diff, I was blocked and unable to participate in discussions[147][148] that contributed to what ultimately became a 1-way IBAN.[149]
Closing statement/evidence
Since this case was proposed, EChastain was banned as a sock puppet,[150] Sue Rangell has been suggested (by the editor who started the successful EChastain SPI) to be a meat puppet,[151] and Scalhotrod, under a cloud, has announced his retirement[152]. Even though Eric Corbett considers me of inferior intellect,[153] and his friend Giano thinks the word "cunt" gives "people" like me "fits of the vapours,"[154] my suspicions about EChastain, Sue Rangell, and Scalhotrod have coincidentally been proven to have merit. In addition to scrutinizing my edits, I hope the committee will use the tools at its disposal to consider the possibility that some of the parties I have named as involved are candidates for bans (Faceless Enemy, Godsy, Scalhotrod, Sue Rangell) or for further bans (Eric Corbett, Hell in a Bucket, Sitush). I believe this case came about not because of my alleged battleground mentality, but because many parts of Wikipedia are virtual battlegrounds. Editors who wish to edit in these areas have two options: Surrender, or persevere and risk annihilation by editors whose agonistic behavior the community condones.
--Lightbreather (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Lightbreather's first evidence (restored)
Restoring material deleted on 19 May 2015 for ease of reference. Roger Davies talk 19:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
Response to Karanacs' evidence
Editor Retention
- 24 Jan 16:02: First part of legitimate question: I see some encouraging observations above, but I have an observation myself. Or a question...
- Karanacs flipped the chronology of "Conversation shifts" and "Eric Corbett warns."
- 16:58 ECo "warns"?
-
- 18:25 Shifts? Six of the seven women pinged were WER members. The seventh is a long-time, respected editor I've never heard a bad word about. Also note that despite the fact the he's not supposed to be discussing the GGTF and that he's obviously baiting me (he hadn't posted to WER in 10 weeks), I did not reply to his post.
- "LB remark" was to John Carter,[157] which indentation and remark[158] shows.
- 25 Jan Opened ARE after (see K's evidence) trying twice to get Eric's comments removed at WER per GGTF scope of bans. The fact is ECo broke his ban and disrupted WER.
- If we're going to discuss use of Eric's quotes as proof of my misbehavior, let's have 'em:
- The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. ... Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.[159]
- ... I really couldn't care less whether or not more women are recruited. I'm here because I think that too many of you have got your heads up your proverbial arses, attacking windmills that are simply mirages.[160]
- If you want to quit then quit, if you don't, then don't make a song and dance about it. And above all all don't assume that you're in any way smarter than those who disagree with you, because I can assure you that you're not.[161]
- After I challenged that first one, Eric started his WP:HARASSment campaign, and he and his wikifriends haven't let up since.
- If we're going to discuss use of Eric's quotes as proof of my misbehavior, let's have 'em:
Scalhotrod
The months preceding Karanacs evidence must be considered. Here are the articles/talk pages that Scalhotrod and I edited between 5-Jan-2014 (GC ArbCom opening) and 28-Jul-2014 (when I started Stalking by SH on Callanecc's talk page).
Editor | Lightbreather 1st | Scalhotrod 1st |
---|---|---|
Articles/common[162] | 26 | 5 |
Article talk/common[163] | 13 | 5 |
- 3-Jul comment: I hope the arbitrators will read the whole reply that it was taken from - in context! The end of which was:
-
- ... since he feels entitled to judge me I'll say this: He has edited many dozens of porn articles and, IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women.[164]
- I did not, as Karanacs paraphrased it, say that "Scal has no respect for women because he edits porn articles."
- And please read Scal's statement that I was replying to.[165] As I said at the time: almost 700 words, and not one addresses the diffs I gave. It was full of WP:ASPERSIONS and he pinged three editors, including Sue Rangell and Mike Searson, and an admin to his defense. (If I did this, it would be called canvassing.) It was also during this time that Mike called me a cunt, to which Scalhotrod replied: Understood, but maybe I can get others to appreciate that....[166]
- July 2014 - Karanacs' evidence supports that Scalhotrod was stalking/WP:HOUNDing me, but here is more:
- 26-Jul-2014 I was invited to join GGTF[167] and joined.[168]
- 28-Jul-2014 I invited three editors.[169][170][171]
- 17:34 Scalhotrod joined within 48 hours of me, within 1 hour of my invitation to others.[172]
- 19:32 Drmies told Scalhotrod that his behaviors were inappropriate,[173] unseemly.[174]
- 19:39 Drmies told Hell in a Bucket: ... in this case, I side with LB, who finds it a kind of stalking, and to tell her to walk away from that, well, that's not fair. Scal needs to walk away from LB's edits and pages, in my opinion.[175]
- 19:44 Per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE I opened "Request for administrator to evaluate the conduct of user."[176]
- 19:57 It was closed by HIAB - non-admin and involved editor - who labeled it "forum shopping"[177]... 13 minutes after I opened it and less than 30 minutes after Drmies questioned HIAB's comments on the matter.[178]
- 29-Jul-2014 Drmies: ... I have seen plenty that's objectionable. ... Scalhotrod, man, you are on a short leash.[179]
- WP:PORN:
- If we must AGF about Scal joining GGTF, then don't apply a double-standard to me.
- Sep. 2014 - I created a porn article and made 500 improvements to others, including extensive work on 3 BLPs and 3 industry-related articles.[180]
- 25-Sep-2014 Karanacs completely misrepresented what I said. When Scal suggested that I'd stalked him to an article, I said: Your last edit on that article was three months before mine. (His appearance re mine is usually within hours/days.) Re "compliments," I said: Also, where stalking ... is concerned, uninvited compliments are just as alarming as uninvited criticism. (Any person who has been stalked can tell you this is true.)
Scalhotrod's behavior
In addition to evidence in my preliminary statement[181] showing Scalhotrod very involved in gun-control and GGTF disputes, proceedings, and related WP:TALK (despite his statement to contrary[182]):
- He is literally invested in the GC debate.[183][184] [possible COI]
- Six-month TBAN from GC for EW w/me.
- Broke TBAN.[185]
- Asked for exclusion from GGTF ArbCom.
- He has proposed a Gun politics task force
I can give evidence of violations of WP:CIVIL,WP:PERSONAL,WP:AGF,WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:DE, WP:RUNAWAY, and Vote-stacking if asked.
Gun control
- 9-Feb-2015 Admin's closing comments not "No way." Incidentally, Faceless Enemy started a SPI against me two days ago.[186] It was closed[187] with note "already confirmed Unrelated back in February" (IP-initiated SPI). So far, these IP's have started SPIs on me: 172.56.9.123 and 174.25.212.163.
- 20-Apr-2015 I unhatted "reading" part and left hatted the speculation discussion.
- 20-Apr-2015 was a suggestion to which I replied with my preference. I don't believe it was locked/protected at any version, for lack of consensus.
- Removed by a clerk. You may remove this notice to save words or contest by email. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Nine of the editors at the AN discussion questioned or opposed the proposal.[188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196]
May:
- Removed by a clerk. You may remove this notice to save words or contest by email. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Battleground attitude
I think that someone who says "I'm being singled out for my gender" should be given a fair hearing.... Drmies, 28-Jul-2014[197]
- 28-Apr-2015 I know Bishonen is a woman. I wasn't responding to her rebuke of Eric's WP:BAITing,[198] but her comment:
-
- ... I rather hope you people block [Lightbreather] for a long time for terminally bad attitude.[199]
- 12-Feb-2015 At nine women's projects[200] I posted this brief, neutrally worded notice:
-
- There is a redirect discussion that may be of interest to this group.
- Since I didn't know how individual members (men and women) would vote, it was not canvassing, but WP:APPNOTE.
- 24-Jan-2015 Was a good-faith effort to start a serious dialogue; the question quoted was one of seven.
- 21-Jan-2015 Please read the whole statement, and the context in which it was made.
- 17-Dec-2014 was a kindness to Neotarf after they were banned. Sitush WP:HOUNDed me there 55 minutes later, not WP:AGF on my words.[201] However, the message was a copy of one Neotarf gave me while I was retired.[202]
- 28-Jul-2014 Supports that Scalhotrod stalked/hounded me.
- 24-Jul-2014 This was during the middle of the "cunt" debates, where the word was used 20 times during this discussion alone. I'm sorry for revealing that sexism was on my mind.
Our survival analyses ... indicate that females who become contributors stop editing Wikipedia sooner than males. ...and suggest that females encounter more adversity in Wikipedia. Lam, S. et al. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11 (ACM): 9.
- 1-Mar-2015 My answer to Ca2james 2-Mar-2015 applies here, [203] but their answer is even better:
-
- ... I won't [warn Eric Corbett and Giano] because it won't make a difference to the pages and it would cause all sorts of unnecessary drama. I expect that they are familiar with WP:POLEMIC whereas I wasn't sure whether or not you were. If they're ignoring or flouting it, the last few days have shown that their behaviour is tolerated, if not condoned, by much of the community. I know that this situation doesn't conform to WP:CIVILITY and that this behavioural double standard is incredibly frustrating, but targeting them won't help and will just make things worse....[204]
- 20-Feb-2015 Was about Sitush, not ECo. That discussion and diff provides 10 pieces of evidence that Sitush WP:HOUNDs me and violates WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:SOAP, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL/WP:PA in his interactions with me.
- 21-Jan-2015 Was about Mike Searson and Scalhotrod, and supports evidence that Scal WP:HOUNDs and WP:BAITs me with WP:UNCIVIL edits.
Response to others' evidence through 10:55 8-May-2015 UTC
- Ched's statement: Please read brief discussion Last warning started on my TP by Ched.
- Carrite's statement:
- 11-Oct-2014 I started this discussion at WT:WER. Within one day of starting it, the word "cunt" was introduced[205] and the thread devolved into another discussion about that. That is why I retired.
- 14-Nov-2014 I "unretired" for one day to make a statement at an RFAR.
- 25-Nov-2014 I unretired indefinitely after Hell in a Bucket shared his "gut feeling"[206] (please read his ES), even though Callanecc had told him to email evidence if he had it.[207] (Up to this point, I had participated at ArbCom while logged out - along with as many as 19 other editors. Editing while logged out says, To protect their privacy, editors who are editing while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames on-wiki. When HIAB presented his evidence at ArbCom, he publicly tied my IP address to my username.)
- Capeo's second bullet is addressed in the "Scalhotrod" and "Battleground attitude" sections of my response to Karanacs. Re my retirement:
- 12-Oct-2014 Announced quitting at WER.
- 14-Oct-2014 Added evidence at GGTF.
- 14-Oct-2014 Last edit for a month.[208] (Truly intended to quit actively editing.)
- Faceless Enemy's statement:
- FE pinged three editors and two admins in their statement.[209] When I do this, it's called "canvassing."
- I never said that I'd not read their edits. I said:
Sitush's behavior
Because Sitush was mentioned once by Capeo[212] and three times by Karanacs[213] before 10:55 8-May-2015 UTC, and because I was blocked and unable to participate in discussions[214][215] that contributed to this IBAN - [216] - I include the following.
Un-WP:CIVIL, assumes bad WP:FAITH, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:PERSONAL attacks, WP:HOUNDING, and WP:SOAP.
1st interaction with me: A 400-word speech.[217] [minimized my fears]
29-Jul-2014 Please will someone call me a cunt to make me feel better. [Drmies TP, 5 days after I was called a cunt]
Since GGTF ArbCom closed:
- 2-Dec-2014 ...almost certainly on a scale that is unimaginable to you. [my TP, uninvited]
- 2-Feb-2015 350 words, no diffs.
- 13-Feb-2015 ... you miss the elephant in the room. [my TP, uninvited]
- 13-Feb-2015 Jimbo's opinion carries no more weight than that of the many other people whom you have canvassed.... [Jimbo's TP, uninvited]
- 14-Feb-2015 Just more disingenuous forum shopping, I guess.... [Jimbo's TP]
- 20-Feb-2015 ... that sort of comment ... like gravedancing. You've done it before.... [my TP, uninvited]
- 2-Mar-2015 [Ched's TP discussion "Lightbreather", uninvited]
- 26-Apr-2015 LB, are you hallucinating? .... [Eric's TP, uninvited]
- 28-Apr-2015 IBAN me and I am gone. [to Roger Davies]
Rebuttals to statements after 10:55 8-May-2015 UTC
- Gaijin42 has accused me before of writing Vigilantism against Sue Rangell, but I wrote that essay after observing and experiencing vigilantism in multiple forums, perpetrated by multiple editors.
- I have potentially outed two times that I'm aware of. The first time it had to be brought to my attention because when another editor did the same thing to me nine days earlier[218] - it wasn't called outing. Nonetheless, when I was called on it, I apologized.[219] The other time, I immediately regretted it and sought oversight help.[220]
- Gaijin's third accusation includes no diffs. As for forum shopping, my practice is to discuss disputes first on the appropriate article/talk page, and then either move to WP:CONTENTDISPUTE or WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. I botched-up re-moving "Assault weapons legislation" back to its original title, Assault weapons ban, but at the time I had little experience in move DR. (The previous month, Gaijin moved an article I'd created, Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, to Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - without discussion. Even Mike Searson agreed that there should have been one.[221])
- Capeo's "start of all this" story doesn't go back far enough.
- 14-Jul-2014 After being bitten,[222][223][224] bullied, tag-teamed, and POV-railroaded for 11 months by pro-gun editors (at least five are now topic-banned, one is site-banned), I was topic-banned for six months[225] for EW with Scalhtrod.
- 23-Jul-2014 I asked at AN TALK about how to start a civility board.[226][227]
- 24-Jul-2014 Eric Corbett's reply to me ended with, Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.[228] [His reply was to me, as his choice of indentation shows. At the time, I'd never heard of him, and I was ignorant of the fact that he has a contingent of editors and admins who repeatedly protect him from himself - unlike any other editor on Wikipedia.]
- This devolved into discussions about what "cunt" means, what Eric meant, whether or not I was too thin-skinned, how Eric should be ignored, and so on.
- 27-Jul-2014 Despite making multiple comments[229][230][231][232][233][234] during the still-open "cunt" debate, Dennis Brown closed my ANI less than an hour after I opened it.[235] [read ES]
- He gave permission to re-open it.[236]
- Neotarf re-opened it, asking that at least one woman admin participate in the close.[237]
- It was closed 8 hours later by Black Kite.[238]
- Dennis continued in the "cunt" debate, with the suggestion (repeated since) that his mother's "salty" behavior was the example by which women should engage with men.[239] [Argument that assumes agonistic behavior is the norm.]
- 12-Sep-2014 Re showing up "unbidden" on Drmies talk page: I used to go there regularly[240]. The diff Capeo gave was one of the handful of times in nearly two years of active editing that I've actually let myself stoop to the kind of comment ECo, Sitush, and others engage in week-in and week-out. Here's what preceded it:
- Words only have the power that we give them.[241] [The irony here being that being called a cunt or a "militant feminist" is something to shrug off and forget about, but being called sexist or a misogynist (have I ever called Eric that?) is reason to bellyache about how abused and misunderstood you are.]
- 8-Sep-2014 Sitush commented on my TP, unbidden.[242]
- 5-Sep-2014 I'm tired and I'm fed up with these repeated accusations that I'm some kind of monster misogynist. Can you can find any evidence at all to support the accusation that I hate all women?[243] [To the best of my knowledge, I never called ECo a misogynist or accused him of hating all women.]
- 26-Jan-2015 My barnstar to Sandstein was for his admin conduct during this AE. However, I deleted[244] it because Ekips39 warned me it was bad form.
I'm running out of room to respond to Capeo, but since several of my accusers are presenting essentially the same allegations, I'll hope the rest is handled in the entirety of my evidence and responses.
- Faceless Enemy: Before responding directly to their allegations, their edit history and behavior should be considered
- February 2015 SPI No action. [evidence not "convincing"]
- Edits 2010: 781
- 2011-2014: 146.
- Jan-2015-to-date: 2385 edits; focus: guns/gun control.[245]
- Battleground conduct: Placing undue weight, Soapboxing, Failure to get the point, Edit warring.
- 28-Jan-2015 Added Gun show loophole to categories "American political neologisms" (though it's been in use for at least 20 years) and "Dysphemisms."[246]
- 8-Mar-2015 Started removing sourced material from National Rifle Association,[247][248] a contentious article.
- 31-Mar-2015 Removed same material, calling it "clickbait."[249][Done when he knew I was out of town with a broken elbow.]
- 5-Apr-2015 Twelve days after Gun show loophole was nominated for GA,[250] they proposed merging Universal background check into it[251] - even though the same proposal had been discussed two months earlier.
- 19-Apr-2015 Started participating in Nazi gun control theory discussions.[252][253][254][255][256]
- February 2015 SPI No action. [evidence not "convincing"]
- 31-Mar-2015 My "canvassing" was notifying Faceless Enemy, on their talk page, that I was out of town and injured, which they apparently knew because they started deleting from the NRA article after I notified Scalhotrod (30-Mar-2015) about my situation. FE and Scal are pro-gun wikifriends. FE hadn't edited NRA since 11-Mar-2015,[257] but within 24 hours of my notice to Scal, they were removing material we'd discussed previously. [see above]
- Ownership? I made no demands. I was out of town and injured and I asked for time. WP:ETIQUETTE asks us to remember The Golden Rule.
- Admin shopping? How about admin conduct?[258]
- 25-Mar-2015 Disruption? This started because Faceless Enemy and Scalhotrod didn't like that I'd developed[259] an Assault pistol article, rather than keeping it as a redirect to something that supports the WP pro-gun stance that the only "assault" firearms are those from the expired-in-2004 federal assault weapons ban[260] or military weapons.[261]
- 31-Mar-2015 Without even reading? No. I said:
- 1-Feb-2015 Editors who said gun show "loophole" was not a pejorative before then: [264][265][266] [I was only one and did not claim that my opinion was equal to that of several editors.]
- Removed by a clerk. You may remove this notice to save words or contest by email. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Asking a source to clarify its disclaimer is "battleground" conduct? Please read my RSN reply to that.[267]
- "Guys" was used the previous day and no-one said a thing.[268] However, when my use of it was questioned, I changed it.[269]
- Removed by a clerk. You may remove this notice to save words or contest by email. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
- Scalhotrod's evidence is too long to respond to, plus I've addressed his behavior elsewhere, but I will address one thing.
- The NRA of my grandfathers' generation focused on safety and marksmanship. I have a basic $35/year membership to see the material it sends to its members only. An endowed, lifetime member of an organization - like Scalhotrod in the NRA[270][271] - has made a serious commitment to its mission, which supports what Scal told TParis as our topic-ban was wrapping up.[272]
--Lightbreather (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
Evidence presented by doncram
This case is biased against LB and amounts to fault-finding
This has to be said. Arbcom cases named after one party only are inherently unfair. Because they attract participation of anyone having a grudge against the one, only. Because it is an uphill battle to have any non-named party held to the same standard. Because by human nature it calls for biased searching against the one. And the one is out-numbered by the many, and allowing double the words does not suffice. This is happening here already in the identification of who are to be included parties and how many words are allowed. LB was working up evidence about 8 parties; it is basically a 1:8 proceeding; LB should have been allowed 8X 500 = 4,000 words rather than merely 1,000. --doncram 22:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Lightbreather has participated constructively in discussions
"Evidence" provided by Karanacs narrates through some discussion at WikiProject Editor Retention in January that shows nothing bad as far as I can tell. Recapitulating it is fine but proves nothing besides it was a reasonable discussion going on about ways to retain editors, and that Lightbreather (LB) participation was reasonable and constructive.
(This statement by me will be refined by adding diffs and otherwise, but for now:) LB agreed with EC that wording of a sentence she had proposed could/should be improved, and she marked it up, and others agreed with LB's refinement.
Specifically LB asked a reasonable question whether women editors had been involved in the discussion, then Eric Corbett jumped in, and there was reasonable questioning by whether EC's participation violated a topic ban for him. One person closed that question, it was reopened politely by LB, then some more persons spoke, and it was closed by someone else. That is fine and good about discussion on the WER page.
As I recall, and will bring evidence about here, is that EC did not participate much before at WER (or at least not for a long time), seemed to arrive or speak up specifically following LB, and seemed focused on gender controversy.
So the entire discussion was fine showing collegial involvement by LB, and an eventual outcome that EC announced his departure was fine, too. What does the "evidence" support that is negative about LB? I don't see it. --doncram 22:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Gaijin42
For transparency purposes, I note that I have submitted evidence to arbcom via email. The evidence was submitted via email because it involves oversight and off-wiki based information. 3 topics were discussed, the allegations of LB's socking during the GGTF case (defending LB), On LBs accusations of EChastain Socking (partially supporting LB's assertion), and some off-wiki behavioral evidence regarding LB. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- LB engages in WP:POLEMICs against those she holds grudges with. User:Lightbreather/sandbox/Vigilantism in particular see diff [273] which targets her perennial grudge Sue. The essay is quite ironic considering how much of it applies to LB's own actions, and since she accuses others of constantly talking behind her back. for context that this refers to Sue, see discussion at [274]
- WP:OUTING [275] [276] - My recollection is that there was another outing attempt at Leo Rangell but its been oversighted out (can't even see the missing diff?) I assume the arbs can see.
- WP:HEAR WP:STICK WP:FORUMSHOP Continual accusations of bias and asking for 2nd 3rd, 4th opinions (several examples during this case). I note she has accused Euralius, and salvio both of bias against her in this case, including asking for recusal, but her concern for bias apparently does not extend to an Arb that follows her on twitter and who she has invited to join her groups multiple times.
- During civility disputes , unilaterally changes policy, despite non-consensus for her proposals Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Proposal_2_re_.22Avoiding_personal_attacks.22 when reverted [277], responds that edit summary "made things worse" is itself incivility/personal attack. When that assertion is questioned [278] accuses the questioner of baiting (PA?), and intentionally breaks the rule she is herself proposing to make a WP:POINT [279] (see summary)
Evidence presented by Capeo
(Request) Statement by Capeo
This preliminary statement is excluded from evidence length limits, Roger Davies talk 06:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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've watched this brew for almost a year now. And in that time Lightbreather has been a regular locus of discord and drama beyond any other user I can think of. The case needs to be seen. After I saw this I've started collecting diffs and can provide them here in a day or two, or if it becomes clear the case will be accepted, in evidence instead. Capeo (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- To elaborate a bit on Carrite's comment: Lightbreather presented evidence in the GGTF case, "retired", socked to try to affect the outcome, got caught and wrongfully accused the user who brought her to SPI of outing, went on a major sock witch hunt using the same methods of ip geolocation she claimed the day before constituted outing, was unsuccessful in her SPIs, came off a far too short block, and then "unretired". Capeo (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- LB's additions perfectly illustrate her battleground mentality. They're simply attempts to retry her failed SPIs or finally get sanctions on editors she has tried repeatedly to get sanctioned (going as far as socking in the GGTF ArbCom case). This is a pattern when things don't go her way. Such as when Scalhotrod joined the GGTF and LB responds with a PA and notes Scalhotrod's participation in the the Porn project [280] then quits after other members ask her to AGF [281] and opens an ANI [282] that is quickly closed. So what does she do to avoid someone claims is harassing her? A few days later she joins the Porn project [283] and begins extensive editing then claims Scalhotrod is stalking [284] then initiates another failed ANI [285]. When I point out it was odd to follow someone you're trying to avoid to a project they are active in she calls my post a distraction. Eventually, as can be seen in the diff Karanacs provided she offers to quit the Porn project if Scalhotrod will quit the GGTF, basically admitting she only started editing porn to force her perceived opponents hand. There's also her response to being caught socking. There's too many diffs to post here but the response wasn't contrition, it was to claim she was a victim while simultaneously trying to connect every IP in the case to actual users and claim sockpuppetry. Going so far in one case that she had to have one of her edit summaries revdeled as it could have constituted outing. Since then there have been more failed accusations of sockpuppetry against some of the users she has listed above and of course the latest Sitush and EC blowup where she went unbidden to EC's page to post in a three week old thread that had nothing to do with her. There's no shortage of this behavior that can be further demonstrated if this case is taken. At this point I fear I'm closing on my word limit so I'll leave it at that. Capeo (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
Statement by Capeo
7/26/14 The start of all this and the stick LB has never dropped is this ANI [286] over[287]. It's closed and LB goes to the closing admin 7 times in a few hours [288] to get it reopened, at one point claiming EC referred to a group of women as cunts [289] (there's no reasonable way to construe EC's statement to mean that), and finally making a new ANI section [290].
7/28/14 LB starts another high-profiled conversation, gets replies she doesn't agree with, then tells people to leave her alone [291] much like the same day on GGTF [292].
7/28/14 Scalhotrod ANI is closed with no action. LB goes to closing admins page close to 15 times in a couple hour span trying to get it re-opened [293]
Karanacs Already covered most of the events through September I see, but there a few more worth noting.
9/5/14 Starts rather pointed editing of Cunt [294].
9/12/14 Unbidden to an EC and Sitush discussion [295].
9/20/14 LB claims of stalking [296]
9/24/14 Vote stack [297]
10/3/14 Extremely pointy RFC [298].
10/14/14 Announces she is quitting [299], submits evidence two days later [300] then stops editing under her username.
11/14/14 As an IP claims to not know who LB is [301]. Adds [302] and [303] in a further attempt to hide her identity.
11/23/14 Claims privacy reasons citing legitimate purpose: Privacy - with a capital "P" though that in no way excuses her socking as her real world identity is not linked to her account [304]. Throughout socking episode she tries to get participants she's had conflict with sanctioned both at ANI and ArbCom: [305], [306], [307], [308], [309], [310], [311], [312], [313].
11/25/14 LB comes out of "retirement" [314], resumes posting [315], denies being the IP [316] then retires again [317] on the 29th. Later an SPI is opened with some of the initial evidence posted on the PD page which LB asks to have revdeled [318] and claims to have socked legitimately [319]. Complains about the other IPs that posted [320] then geolocates them all [321]. Not long after she begins trying to connect locations to anyone who disagreed with her during the case [322]. Following her block she spends the next days calling for investigations of other IPs and makes unfounded connections to users who have disagreed with her this being the last diff in a section that made many baseless accusations:[323]. Note again the privacy claim.
12/1/14 LB claims outing [324]. Three days later comes so close to outing another user a revdel is needed [325].
1/26/15 A barnstar for blocking [326].
1/28/15 Jumps into another EC AE trying for sanctions [327].
2/12/15 Edits EC's talk page [328].
2/20/15 Jumps into an ANI concerning Sitush [329] where she was not involved prior.
2/22/15 Poke at EChastain [330].
2/25/15 A rather vitriolic post about a GA [331].
2/27/15 Again makes false outing statement [332].
3/31/15 Ownership [333].
4/26/15 On EC's page unbidden again [334].
5/8/15 "Privacy" claim again [335]. Capeo (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
- Response to [336] a selective reading that omits "Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors". Capeo (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Faceless Enemy
(Request) Statement by Faceless Enemy
This preliminary statement is excluded from evidence length limits, Roger Davies talk 06:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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've already said my piece on the unfounded SPI. I know LB had a hard time dropping it back then too, so I'm not particularly surprised that she's trying to revive it again. (I feel that Mike V deserves a ping here, since I added a link to his TP.) Whatever. Also, I don't think editing gun control articles is inconsistent with my editing history at all; the first article I edited was AK-47, and I was editing the Brady Campaign article back in May 2010. I think the original SPI was started in bad faith, and the call for it to be re-opened is being made in bad faith again. Her point about me and Godsy and anyone else who disagrees with her seems to boil down to "a pro-gun editor got banned for socking once. All other pro-gun editors must be socks!" Her paranoia about socking ain't there for Felsic/162.119.231.132 though. I don't see the issue with a merger proposal for an article that has been nominated for GA. If it's a merge worth discussing, it's worth discussing while the GA review is ongoing. As to our back and forth at the NRA page, it was predicated on the fact that she said here that she hadn't even read the edits I made. I thought after this discussion that we would be okay, as my impression at the time was that she objected to my removing content. The point of the majority of work I had done on the page was to re-add stronger sources for stuff, but she was willing to blatantly violate 3RR to keep the page at her preferred version. (NB: she edited the page afterward, but made sure that anything we disagreed on stayed the way she liked it.) Capitalismojo and Spike Wilbury may be able to comment further. I think "battleground" would be a fair word to use for how an article starts to feel when LB shows up, apparently no matter what the topic is. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:50 & ~11:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Lightbreather: Again, please refer to me as "they", not "he". I don't know where you've picked up the idea that I'm male. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lightbreather has engaged in canvassing
- “I am pinging Felsic on this, too.” Felsic is an extremely pro gun control editor, whose most recent edit had been over a month before, and since then 6 other editors had edited the NRA page. Lightbreather chose to ping a single perceived ideological ally over people more recently involved in the article.
- Attempted admin shopping
Lightbreather has engaged in article ownership
- “Let's wait until I'm home (waiting for a doc's appt) before we resume this debate.”
- “Could an uninvolved admin please intervene?”
Lightbreather has disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point
When a discussion here (about whether or not to include examples of assault pistols on the article page) was not going her way, Lightbreather went and deleted examples of other firearm types to prove her point. ([337] [338] [339] [340])
Lightbreather has edit warred without even reading the content she was edit warring over
“If I were in my own office and had the use of both arms, I might have tried to figure out the appropriate edits you made among the others.” 1 2 3 4 (3RR violation)
Lightbreather considers her own opinion to be equal to that of several editors
“and not dropping it even though several editors have agreed that ‘loophole’ is not a pejorative.” (My reply)
Lightbreather alleges socking in bad faith
- Her SPI against me is closed
- Brings it back up with closing admin, where further evidence is provided that she is wrong.
- [341]
- [342]
- Attacked two other users she has had content disputes with.
Lightbreather is either incompetent or edits in bad faith
Insists that the Second Amendment “regulates” the right to keep and bear arms ([343] [344] [345] [346] [347]), something no gun control or gun rights group has ever said, then offers a “compromise” that is heavily biased towards gun control. Either she doesn’t understand sentence structure, or she was offering a sacrificial straw man so that she could later say that she compromised.
Lightbreather has engaged in general battleground conduct
- After Capitalismojo found an older disclaimer for a website LB wanted to use that strongly questioned its reliability, she emailed the source so that they changed their disclaimer.
- Brings gender up wherever possible.
- Aspersions of socking.
Reply to Lightbreather's evidence
- Scalhotrod's NRA membership is not a conflict of interest. He is not an NRA lobbyist. He has given them money - just as many people donate to many organizations. The accusation of a COI is so incredibly absurd that I'm forced to question either your WP:COMPETENCE or your WP:GOODFAITH. You're either oblivious as to how the NRA works, oblivious as to how the conflict of interest policy works, or you're just throwing mud around and hoping some of it sticks. You're plenty smart, so I'd bet on the latter. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Scalhotrod
(Request) Statement by Scalhotrod, request to be excused
This preliminary statement is excluded from evidence length limits, Roger Davies talk 06:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
Given the requests for amendment that LB made[348], I am asking to be excused from this proceeding and not be named as a party. I was not involved in the Gun control or the GGTF ArbComs. In fact, my only direct connection was the ArbCom Enforcement about Gun Control that LB brought against me which resulted in a 6 month Topic Ban for both of us. Thank you, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
Misleading presentation of evidence
While everyone is entitled to their personal opinion or interpretation, LB has a pattern of presenting evidence in either a completely misleading manner or just totally out of context with regard to the entire conversation, i.e. cherry picking, including evidence presented here. This is a prime example...
- Asked for exclusion from GGTF ArbCom.
Originally from the GGTF ArbCom evidence that LB posted[349]. The actual text presented was...
- [350] Eric Corbett replied: "[The] easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one." Baiting at least. Others agreed that it was a personal attack. - LBs comments
- [351] Scalhotrod replies to Eric's comment: "Brilliantly put!"
A grossly misstated version of what was actually stated and the above dif shows this.
I inquired a second time[352] and Arbitrator Salvio removed it[353][354].
It's being submitted again, in just as misleading of a manner albeit with a different presentation.
POV and Tendentious Editing and Ownership
- April 2014, "my observation is that I am the only 'pro-control' editor here"[355]
- May 2014, "What I'm seeing in regards to this topic - and have seen for some months - is a push by a number of editors who don't seem to want to acknowledge to Wikipedia readers that there are in-force assault weapons bans, or that there ever was any assault weapons ban except for the federal ban that expired 10 years ago."[356]
- April 2014, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, LB adds references to "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines"[357]. It was reverted[358] (by Ianmacm), LB restored it[359], it was reverted[360], then a Talk page discussion was started[361]. Multiple Editors explained that the terms were not NPOV. In addition to posting a lengthy list of sources[362], LB created the article Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that same day.[363] Then inserted a link to Assault Weapons Ban of 2013[364].
- Silicon Valley - LB added gender discrimination and sexism subsections under "Diversity" which became "Demographics", starting with this reversion,[365]. In some instances LBs content read like an attack piece on Silicon Valley, not an encyclopedic presentation of information.[366][367][368] Any edit per WP:BRD was met with reversion[369] stating "Restoring subsection, which I will be expanding tomorrow using some of the 20+ sources listed on the talk page." Which LB did with "Sexism, misogyny, and sexual harassment".[370] Rather WP:POINTy for a Talk page section.
- Assault weapons legislation in the United States - LB created this article as Assault Weapons Ban[371][372] with an emphasis on "ban". When others tried to expand it, LB resisted, including the title change to the above. First an RfC[373] then a Move Request[374] then a request to the closing Admin to review the Move Request[375]. All the while, there was a WP:MOVEWAR going on and part of why LB and I were given a 6 month Topic ban. This article was a mess from the start. When others stepped in LB took offense, but it turned into a decently informative article.
- National Rifle Association - The stats speak for themselves: Created Aug 2002[376], LB joined March 2007[377]; over 1,300 distinct Editors, LB is responsible for at least 400 edits, >11% of the total[378]. The inflexibility, arguing over exact wording, which sources to use, refusal to accept consensus, and just plain stubbornness with regard to any change to their content or use of sources is exasperatingly prohibitive.
- The Finances section of the organization has been a Coatrack of LBs to accentuate that the group receives funding from the industry it represents including gun manufacturers. After tediously exhaustive Talk page discussions[379][380], a NPOVN posting was started over in a single sentence.[381] Quite literally, LB insists on using the word "considerable" to describe the amount donated by gun manufacturers when its total or even percentage is unknown versus the phrase "a portion of".
Personal Attacks and non-AGF
- ArbCom Enforcement, LB stated "He has edited many dozens of porn articles and, IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women."[382], was not admonished for it, and then repeated it and tried to justify it on the GGTF Talk page.[383]
- In addition to the attack for joining the GGTF.[384]
- Claims that Editors used LBs self-announced injury and lack of internet access to take advantage of articles LBs editing.[385] and again.[386][387]
WP:NOT HERE
https://twitter.com/Lightbreather August 2014[388] and http://lightbreather.com If LB goes to such lengths to undermine the project, why participate.
Response to COI accusation
- LB has stated that they are also an NRA member[389]. I was offered my membership upgrade for $250 and allowed to do it in 10 equal installments. I did this to support the National Firearms Museum.
- This has now become LBs new method/hook/what-have-you to belittle me or my opinions (see edit summary)[390] --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Hell in a Bucket
(Request) Statement by Hell in a Bucket
This preliminary statement is excluded from evidence length limits, Roger Davies talk 06:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
If I may a suggestion, this my indeed be in violation of my Iban and feel free to block away or remove if it is. If allowed to participate may I suggest zero interaction between them and only posting of evidence with restrictions from the talkpages for all bans. I actually have enjoyed the quiet of the interaction ban and while I would like to provide evidence it reduces the drama if replies are not allowed and same stuff outside of the request/evidence phase alone should be allowed. It should make the waters clearer and calmer while allowing evidence to be provided. I refrain from comment to the merits of the case request as I believe it would be a gross violation to do so at this point without clarification. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
Discussion with regular joe schmos
Lightbreather can't take even the simplest discussion about herself even when it's civil. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
It's ok for LB but no one else
- 1a Attack section on Eric Corbet on Jimbos page
- 1b Another editor started this discussion on the Gender bias in Wikipedia talk page: COI. I replied, but really, it's not about the article, it's about me. Can it be removed?
- 2a The material is NOT undue per my edit summaries
- 2b Please stop using revtalk
- 3a Could you tell Scal, on his talk page, to stay off mine? I cannot promise to stay off his, because I check it once a week or so to see if he's talking about me
- 3b started this discussion to present evidence of what I saw, and still see, as harassment - hounding/stalking, to be exact
Inability to take or understand constructive criticism.
In the case request Lightbreather states that [391] is reffered to as WP:FORUM when it's a section started by LB [[392]]. This is an example of her response today after filing another SPI [393] to [394]. In almost anybody else's home or office my reply wouldn't have been a violation of "Wikipedia is not a forum" or a reason to expel someone from their talk page. This is only two small examples that there are massive WP:COMPETENCE issues here if we assume bad faith we have an editor that is willing to manipulate policy, lie, out others, subject others to actual off wiki harrassment. Lightbreather is and has been acting like a bully as evidenced in the sheer number of Ibans that has been accumulated and behaviors such as the links above with asking for a ban with SCAL but saying she would still be going to his page at will or she offered Sue Rangell to avoid the pages she was interested in if she left Lightbreather's interests alone [395]. Most of the editors on that list have done very little other then disagree with Lightbreather. At one point a restriction on administration boards was proposed and short of banning her that appears to be the least restrictive manner to reign in the disruption.Often the attacks being complained about are often not attacks at all. The rest the forum shopping, SPI, resulting dishonesty and subsequent behaviors have been so well covered by User:Karanacs that I think restating it only wastes the committees time. I'm not entirely blameless as there could have been times I didn't say things but they were borne in frustration of watching a person claim to be a victim when in reality it was a means to silence opposition. Every time something is claimed even for well known events like the SPI and resulting evasion is met with claims of casting aspersions with complaints of the results, and again [396](there was one or two other times but trying to find those has been difficult). It's like beat down by policy if she can't get the information removed in other ways.
WP:COMPETENCE and WP:BATTLEGROUND
Comments like [397], good. Comments like [398] Bad. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Drmies
Writing my assertion here
We are past the point of no return here. Any time I want to regard Lightbreather in the best possible light (and I'm cited a few times on the main case page as being on her side) there is yet one more thing that darkens the prospect of her returning as a content editor. Exhibit A is this very case, in which LB argues that everyone else's behavior is really the problem. Exhibit B is hot off the press: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaijin42/Archive. For those of you who are new to this: Gaijin was on the wrong side of the gun debate (he's for guns, basically), where LB and I are of course on the right side. Gaijin, if I remember correctly, got topic-banned in the ArbCom case, but he's really not a bad person (just misguided, haha), and in various conversations has tried to help LB out, or suggested ways in which I could (don't ask me for diffs, and I don't keep email records). Either way, that Gaijin would be charged with socking, the same Gaijin who has been one of the most courteous and open-minded editors on the wrong side of the gun debate, well, that's just sad, as my oldest daughter would say, and it is evidence that LB will resort to any means possible to discredit her political and other opponents. Which is a pity, since she had much to offer to the gun articles. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Ca2james
(Request) Statement by Ca2james
This is the initial case statement. Do not edit or amend it. This preliminary statement is excluded from evidence length requirements, Roger Davies talk 06:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
Lightbreather's behaviour has been problematic wherever she has edited and so I think a new case should be opened instead of amending either the Gun Control or GGTF cases. I also think that the case should be focused on her behaviour specifically rather than that of the list of editors she's named above. That list includes the editors with whom she's had lots of conflict but her disruptive behaviour goes beyond just those editors to any editors who disagree with her. I recognize that the other editors may not have behaved perfectly, but it is difficult for almost anyone to behave perfectly when faced with the kind of incivility and battleground tendencies that Lightbreather has shown. I have approached Lightbreather several times about the tone of her posts towards certain other editors, as I have found her posts to be uncivil, dismissive, pointy, and combative. Edited to remove example previously provided; will save it for evidence. Ca2james (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lightbreather engages in battleground conduct
I have approached Lightbreather about her comments [399] and actions [400][401][402] but her responses each time were to argue [403][404][405][406] rather than consider that I might have a point. In each of these interactions, she did not compromise; she did not apologize; and she appeared to think she was never in the wrong - or at least, if she was, it was ok because of others' behaviour. Even these small interactions show her battleground attitude and approach towards others.
Lightbreather may not be suited to editing Wikipedia
Lightbreather has said that she is a journalist [407] and it is reasonable to conclude that she is therefore accustomed to presenting a particular point of view for the benefit of her readers. However, this approach is incompatible with Wikipedia's content policies and based on my own interactions with her, it seems to me that Lightbreather has been unable to transition from the role of journalist to the role of Wikipedia editor.
This is sad. I think she has much to offer Wikipedia as she does have good ideas, is good with words, and is skilled at research, but her battleground attitude and insistence that she is right is frustrating, off-putting, and exhausting to deal with if you (like me) find yourself disagreeing with her in any way. It is not surprising that someone this argumentative would be discussed on editor Talk pages, and her crusade to stop editors from doing so [408][409][410] only makes the problem worse. Her behaviour has resulted in a vicious cycle that has led to this arbitration case.
Clarification and rebuttal of Lightbreather's evidence
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.
With respect to Sitush, her very first interaction with him was to tell him (and SPECIFICO) on July 24, 2014 to "Please go away" [411] followed immediately by archiving the discussion [412]. Since then, she has misrepresented what he said [413] and made uncivil remarks about him, [414] including implying that his statements were immature, uncollegial, and unconstructive.[415] In that latter discussion, I commented that I thought she was targeting him specifically rather than the ideas he was expressing. [416]
I realize that Sitush has talked about Lightbreather and said that she was "whinging," [417] but to me, it seems that Lightbreather had made up her mind against him from the start, possibly because of his apparent friendship with Eric Corbett (and the cunt debacle) or because of his interactions with CarolMooreDC (which rightly resulted in their IBAN at WP:ARBGGTF). It is unclear to me why Lightbreather seeks a further ban against him.[418] Ca2james (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Chess
Just adding on to what others said
I just broke my wrist recently. It is difficult to edit Wikipedia for me. Howver, there is difference between you and me, Lightbreather. I don't use a broken bone as an excuse to delay discussion. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
- As seen in [419], Lightbreather IS able to edit when she really wants to. She must also have super healing powers, as barely three hours before [420], she used the failure of her arm as an excuse to not actually examine edits she was reverting. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Times Lightbreather has talked about broken elbow as a reason to not edit articles
[421] [422] [423] [424] [425] [426] [427] [428] [429]
Lightbreather's offsite mailing list
Announcement message. Considering that Lightbreather has canvassed before [430], [431], [432], I'd think that it would be prudent to inform arbs about this (offwiki) mailing list where the archives are private. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by Carrite
I've had my share of disagreements with Lightbreather over the past year (maybe a double portion), but I do want to say two things: (1) She has been subjected to off-wiki sexual harassment that nobody should have to be subjected to; (2) The clerks for this case need to start doing their fucking job and not letting snarky crap like this [433] stand. There is not a single diff presented in that so-called "Evidence." Carrite (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2015 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by SlimVirgin
Lightbreather's early experience on Wikipedia, from 2013 when she began editing regularly, was badly affected by a protracted dispute with Sue Rangell, who stopped editing in August 2014. It was made worse when EChastain, who began editing in October 2014, also began criticizing LB.
LB believed that EChastain was Sue Rangell. She felt hounded, in part because she believed Sue Rangell and/or EChastain knew her name. Despite efforts on LB's part to find help, admins were unwilling to act because the issue wasn't straightforward.
It transpired that EChastain was Mattisse (SPI). It wasn't established that Sue Rangell was also Mattisse, but the claim of all three to be psychologists increases the likelihood. Sue Rangell's bio on her early user page (10 March 2007) was a copy of Nesbit's (12 Sept 2006), apart from a few tweaks, so it does appear there was an issue with the Sue Rangell account. (Nesbit is an academic with no connection to this situation.)
This kind of masquerade has a destabilizing effect on editors, as does being unable to find help. Add the sexism, the contentious articles LB edited, and that a few editors started commenting on her a lot, and it must have felt like a very hostile environment. I hope the committee will take that into account. Sarah (SV) (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.