Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
Track related changes |
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
- Request a new arbitration case
- Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
- This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
- Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
- Arbitrator motions
- Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request
Requests for arbitration
Requests for clarification and amendment
Clarification request: Eastern Europe
Initiated by Mhawk10 at 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Mhawk10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Mhawk10
The decision enables discretionary sanctions on topics relating to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. To what extent does the scope of the case apply to events that occur within Russia and Kazakhstan and locales within Russia and Kazakhstan on the basis of their geographical location?
Russia is a transcontinental country spanning Europe and Asia, and only part of the country is within Eastern Europe. Read in the most narrow way, only the geographic portion of Russia that is within Eastern Europe would fall under the scope of the discretionary sanctions (no part of Russia is in the Balkans, so that part of discretionary sanctions is moot). Given that there is a bit of uncertainty regarding the borders between Europe and Asia within Russia, and that part of Russia (such as Vladivostok) is clearly not in what is generally considered to be in Europe. As such, this leaves open the question of whether EE applies to events that take place within the Russian Federation based on the lack of clarity surrounding the Europe-Asia border. Is all of Russia considered to be part of Eastern Europe for the purpose of these sanctions, or only the part of Russia that is within Eastern Europe? And, if only the part of Russia in Eastern Europe is considered to be within the scope of the discretionary sanctions, where does Eastern Europe stop? And, would events that are of national importance to the Russian Federation that occurred in Asian Russia (such as the poisoning of Alexei Navalny within the scope of WP:EEWP:ARBEE?
Additionally, there are parts of western Kazakhstan that are generally considered to be within Europe, though I imagine that the remedy relating locus of the case's particular dispute was not intended to capture portions of the Atyrau Region or West Kazakhstan Region. Does "Eastern Europe" for the purpose of this decision include the portion of Kazakhstan that is considered to be within Europe, or no portion of Kazakhstan at all? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is an inquiry for a broader understanding, with the giving alerts, talk pages notices, etc. in mind. I was a bit surprised when I didn't see a talk page notice on the Poisoning of Alexei Navalny page even though there is one on the Alexei Navalny page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Given the facts at this AN thread, I think that some users (like me) would benefit from knowing whether the topic of Crimean Tatars within the Soviet Union (for example) is within the scope of
WP:EEWP:ARBEE. I don't think it's entirely abstract at this point. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Given the facts at this AN thread, I think that some users (like me) would benefit from knowing whether the topic of Crimean Tatars within the Soviet Union (for example) is within the scope of
Statement by GizzyCatBella
How about the Soviet satellite state of East Germany? Additional illustration - Greece and the European part of Turkey. This might be confusing to the young (born in 2000 +) - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Comment by GoodDay
If my memory serves me correctly? The countries in Europe that were under Soviet influence or control, were described as "Eastern European countries", as being behind the "Iron Curtain". The East (Communist) vs West (Democracy), etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Eastern Europe: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Is there an actual issue at the moment where this would clarification would have an impact or is it an inquiry for a broader understanding (such as editors who might need an alert, talk pages where the notice would appear, etc)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I also don't see a one size fits all answer here and the AN thread linked as a reason why an answer is needed doesn't strike me as a particularly great place to weigh in either. The best I can offer is that at least some parts of Russian topics will fall with-in the scope of EE. Do all parts? That's what I'm not ready to say today, as maybe yes, maybe no. I would need more input from the community than this ARCA has achieved for me to say. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding of the original disputes that led to this particular discretionary sanctions regime is that the disputes were more along ethnic lines within certain parts of Europe. The various situations presented in the original request for clarification all seem to be edge cases, and would be probably best dealt with on the individual merits of a known conflict or dispute as it arises; the particulars of geographical location would be but one factor in determining whether this discretionary sanctions regime applies. For example, ethnic disputes involving Kazakhstan would probably be lumped under "Central Asia" and not "Eastern Europe (let's ignore for a moment what does and doesn't have a DS regime presently). In contrast, my instinct would be to lump anything Russia-related under Eastern Europe given the likely cultural basis for a dispute. But, I should emphasize again that I don't see a good one-size-fits-all answer here. Maxim(talk) 17:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Crimea is in Eastern Europe, so editing conflicts related to that region (and to go along with Maxim's line of reasoning, ethnic-related conflicts in particular) would fall under the Eastern Europe DS regime. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
- Is this a generational/cultural thing requiring memories pre-dating the fall of the wall (1989)? Eastern Europe is the former Soviet Union and its satellite states east of the Iron Curtain. Cabayi (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still thinking this over but the response here suggests that a clarification by motion (instead of a routine archiving of this ARCA) would be appropriate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
- Is this actually causing problems? Do we have any examples of misunderstandings that are leading to sanctions being actioned or not actioned based on this misunderstanding, or are we simply looking at the hypothetical on the terminology. It's a "broadly construed" topic for a reason - because there is some grey area in terminology, and I'd rather we didn't get bogged down in minutiae when it's not causing any actual problems. WormTT(talk) 11:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Amendment request: Wikicology
Closed without action. firefly ( t · c ) 08:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Initiated by Jayen466 at 08:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Jayen466T_Cells' site-ban has come up in the context of his receiving WMF grant money to coordinate the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos contest. If he is being discussed here then he should, as a basic principle of courtesy, be allowed to comment in that discussion, if he wishes to do so.
Statement by T_CellsStatement by Indy beetleWith all due respect to Jayen466, I don't think this is really necessary. The case of Wikicology/T Cells is simply being used as an example for a broader phenomenon, and that discussion is more geared towards WMF process,
Statement by HandsomeBoyI remember clearly most of the events that led to the block of T Cells. I remember I was really pissed at him (his editing style), and how Wikipedia was accommodating him. Fast forward to 2022, and we have a transformed editor that has improved in almost all aspects on and off wiki. I am not supporting this because I got to know him more, I am supporting because the way he handles issues has significantly changed (even reborn) and I am very confident the factors that led to his block will not arise again. This is the right step in the right direction. Back to the subject of this amendment, T Cells has been a dedicated volunteer for Yoruba wiki, Commons and Meta spaces, and I believe this will allow him coordinate the activities better. It has been years, no one should be revoked for life, except in special cases which I do not think this should fall into. Statement by {other-editor}Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information. Wikicology: Clerk notes
Wikicology: Arbitrator views and discussion
|
Clarification request: Gender and sexuality
Initiated by Sideswipe9th at 21:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Sideswipe9th
I'd like to request clarification on the title, and scope of the Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions please. There appears to be a disconnect between the title of the case, and the text of the remedy. The title of the case implies that this case covers all edits relating to both gender and sexuality, however the text of the remedy states that the scope is limited to [disputes] regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender
(remedy 1), and any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force
(remedy 2). While there is considerable overlap between the various communities under the LGBT+ umbrella, with many individuals belonging to more than community, by a plain reading of the text, neither of the two active remedies in the case involve sexuality.
My requests for clarification are;
- Are edits relating to sexuality within the scope of the Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions, if those edits are in relation to a person who is not trans or non-binary?
- If edits relating to sexuality are within the scope, can the text of the remedy be amended to make this clearer?
- If edits relating to sexuality are not within the scope, can the name of the case be amended to make this clearer?
Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Seren Dept
I believe the scope notes you refer to are preceded by this, the active remedy, which is much more broad:
...with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people."
I think the elements you're referring to specifically are there just to be clear about situations from preceding cases or clarification requests. At the time of GamerGate there had already been several fraught cases and I think the committee decided that participants would move these fights to other similar topics or that similar conflicts would appear later.
Seren_Dept 00:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oh my bad, I focused on the idea that the scope was limited by the specific inclusions in the motion, but it's true that sexuality isn't mentioned at all in the active remedy. I'd construe most disputes about sexuality as being related to gender, but I can see that's arguable, and anyway it's not me making the decisions. Seren_Dept 17:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Firefly
I think whether this needs a case depends on the nature of the request - is it clerical or substantive:
- "This case / discretionary sanctions regime has an inaccurate name which is causing confusion"
- Fix: change the name/shortcut by motion.
- "This discretionary sanctions regime doesn't adequately cover the topic(s) where disruption exists, and should be expanded"
- Fix: file a case noting the disruption that isn't covered by the DS regime; one of the options available to the arbitrators would be to expand it.
I realise this may be stating the obvious, but I think it's important that we clearly define what the actual issue is here. I do not know enough about the topic to offer an opinion there unfortunately. firefly ( t · c ) 08:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Gender and sexuality: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Gender and sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion
- I have some opinions about the answers to the questions posed here. But I can't help but wonder if rather than giving the answers here if a case, similar to PIA4, might not be better in arriving at the right answer for the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- The four numbered items at the amended remedy are "preserve[d] previous clarifications", not the entire scope of the topic. So yes to the first question. I thought the language as is is clear, but if a tweak is needed, fine. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Motions
Lightbreather unban appeal
I come before the arbitration committee and the community today to ask again to have my site ban lifted.
First, I accept the "Findings of Fact" from the 2015 case against me. I was not the first Wikipedia editor to be harassed (including sexually) on- and off-wiki, but my own conduct became disruptive. For that I am sincerely sorry and I apologize. In addition, I have deleted my blog. (There is no longer a lightbreather.com.)
Second, there are five "Remedies" against me: 1) Site-ban, 2) Gun control topic ban, 3) Restricted to one account, 4) 1RR, and 5) Reverse topic ban. I am asking only to have the site-ban lifted at this time. I will not ask about the other restrictions for at least 12 months.
Third, I have a BA in journalism and copy editing is my forté. Not only do I enjoy editing, but I can be an asset to the project. In addition to working on WP:WIRED - and possibly WP:AFRO - pages, I also imagine myself making quite a lot of “gnome” edits. Further, I have taken to heart what I learned from my previous on-wiki experience and will be a better Wikipedian.
Thanks for your consideration. -Submitted by Lightbreather via email to the Arbitration Committee
Previous public appeal
Dear community:
I am following the on-wiki discussion and appreciate the opportunity provided by the Arbitration Committee to address some questions and comments from “Lightbreather unban appeal” at WP:ARM.
1. One question is how I'm going to avoid the behaviors that resulted in being banned. I discussed that extensively with the June 2020 committee, but to summarize, two ways.
FIRST, I won't edit gun, gun control, or gun politics articles or comment on associated talk pages. Not just because of my topic ban, but also because I do not want to edit there. The topic still interests me as a person, but not as a Wikipedia editor.
Please note that I edited other subjects without major disputes in my active years. (The exception being "Silicon Valley" with the editor banned by the WMF in 2015 after my case’s closure.)
Examples of not-gun-related articles/lists I edited:
- My "Silicon Valley" edits: https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Lightbreather&page=Silicon_Valley&server=enwiki&max=
- I don't read them, but I created this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminist_comic_books
- I cleaned up "Online identity": https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Lightbreather&page=Online_identity&server=enwiki&max=
- I created a bio for Laura Langbein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Langbein
- I cleaned up and added content to "Mule": https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Lightbreather&page=Mule&server=enwiki&max=
- I cleaned up the bio for Sharon Mitchell: https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Lightbreather&page=Sharon_Mitchell&server=enwiki&max=
- I cleaned up the bio for Ian Ayres: https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Lightbreather&page=Ian_Ayres&server=enwiki&max=
- I cleaned up "Sexually transmitted infections in the pornography industry": https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Lightbreather&page=Sexually_transmitted_infections_in_the_pornography_industry&server=enwiki&max=
- I created a stub for Sallie Davis Hayden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Davis_Hayden
- I cleaned up the bio for Josephine Brawley Hughes: https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Lightbreather&page=Josephine_Brawley_Hughes&server=enwiki&max=
SECOND, if someone reverts an edit of mine, I'll simply let it lie. For example, of my first eight edits on Wikipedia, four were reverted without comment and four were reverted as "link spam" - a term as a newbie I didn't know. I didn’t revert them.
2. Some in the appeal discussion have suggested that I want to push a POV on "... gender issues, politics, etc". I don't believe I did any major editing on any gender or politics articles aside from those mentioned above. Except for participating in GGTF discussions, gender was a subject area - like politics in general - I was not active in. For instance, a few people think I was involved in "Gamergate" editing, but I was NOT.
I did create a short-lived women’s Kaffeeklatsch page, but that was in response to discussions surrounding my Meta proposal for a WikiProject Women space, which received dozens of endorsements: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject_Women#Endorsements Nonetheless, I have no desire to try to create such a space now myself.
3. A couple people are worried that I want to edit in the Black Lives Matter subject area. I did name WP:WIRED and WP:BLM before, but it is properly WP:WIRED - and possibly WP:AFRO - that I'm interested in and mentioned in my current appeal. (BLM interests me as a person, but not as an editor.)
A couple people are also concerned that I want to edit about elections. Mercy no! This is the message I’m trying to relay: I do NOT want to edit in controversial areas.
4. Some have said that I only deleted my blog to pass this appeal. Of course, in a perfect world I would never have created the blog. But I am a human and I did what I did.
In 2020, when I first appealed my ban, I made no changes to my blog. Its existence was well known among some Wikipedians, so deleting it did not seem the right thing to do. At the time I wrote that appeal, of my 50-something blog posts, three were from 2018 and one each from 2019 and 2020. Nonetheless, in July 2020, in response to committee feedback, I extensively censored the blog. What I wrote at the time:
“Although significantly editing archived stories goes against my instinct and my training, I am going through my blog posts one by one and either A) unlisting them from the blog or B) editing them to remove most Wikipedia usernames. The posts I have unlisted are the one I published in the first half of this year (in March 2020) plus older ones that include a Wikipedia username in the title and focus on the editing behavior of one or more Wikipedia editors. The other posts I have edited to use nonspecific identities: for example, using the term “an editor” instead of giving the actual Wikipedia username. Exceptions are posts made before 2016 and posts that reference banned, blocked, or inactive Wikipedia editors.”
In response to my most recent appeal, the committee suggested that I remove more content from the blog. I considered doing so, but ultimately decided to just get rid of it. (Of course I know it’s on the Internet Archive.)
5. Finally, I acknowledge some think I am a leopard that will never change its spots. I doubt that I can say anything to change their minds. Rather I would reiterate that I am a human being who has learned from past mistakes and given the chance I believe you will see that is true.
Arbitrator views and discussions (unban appeal)
- Little explanatory note: LB appealed to us via email some months ago. After vigorous discussion, we found that there was some appetite to unblock (and some appetite to not), but that the community needed to be consulted first. I'll note if we unblock, we are not vindicating her, and that the initial ban was good; we are lifting this only because we are willing to give her a second chance. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 15:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Just noting that I raised Lightbreather's last appeal at this location, and was supportive. More information came to light regarding her blog, meaning the appeal ultimately failed. I am hopeful that sufficient time has passed, and combined with the fact that she has completely removed her blog in entirety, something I take as an act of good faith, I am hopeful that we may be able to reintegrate her with the community. For now, I'd like to hear community thoughts. WormTT(talk) 15:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you all for you comments so far. I do understand that the response from some individuals will be a "no, never", and that's fine. However, it takes an awful lot for me to move to "no, never". Two years ago, Lightbreather came with a decent appeal, which was rightly turned down after the community brought information to our attention. I wasn't expecting to entertain another appeal before 2025, but when she came to us earlier this year, the tone was conciliatory - she wasn't demanding everything be brushed away that she didn't agree with, she wasn't negotiating to come back as she liked, she just wanted to come back and prove herself.
- This can be shown, most clearly, by the deletion of her blog. There were no cries of censorship, no complaints, she just deleted it wholesale.
- People can change in seven years. I'm all for a probationary period. I'm all for making sure that the restrictions are right for her return, be that adding interaction bans, or topic bans for areas that are of particular concern, but I think most of them are already in place.
- But I'd like someone to persuade me why I should think "no, never", I'm not seeing that. And if not never, why not now? WormTT(talk) 07:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I've probably spent more time on Lightbreather's appeals than any other appeal over the last 21 months. This is a complicated case because LB clearly was harmed by other Wikipedians, but she also caused real harm to Wikipedians. Two wrongs don't make a right, but it does engender in me some sympathy. But that sympathy is also only there because I sense a genuine desire to make what amends there can be for people LB harmed. I know that the blog has been an ongoing concern from editors who were targeted. I believe that those issues have been addressed. To the extent that they haven't been I'd like to give LB the chance to do so. But beyond all that I really do want to hear from the community. As noted here I'm sympathetic to the appeal, but there is a reason I didn't post this as an actual motion (with vote) to unban. I want to hear from the community and I know other arbs share that POV which is why we made the decision to notify everyone who participated last time and to also post this to ACN/AN. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown thanks for your feedback. If there was a motion to unban would you want a 1 way iBAN? I am in no rush here and will be thinking about the feedback you, Sitush, and others have offered but would want to understand your preferences if we proceed to some sort of vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown I think we have different conclusions about just how known of a quantity she is. I get that you feel she is well known and so it's unsurprising that for you she falls in the "never" category. I'm not quite there. As for only telling us what we want to hear, some information in her past appeals were definitely not what arbs wanted to hear and yet she wrote it anyway. And as I think we both know even when people attempt to say what you want to hear it can be revealing in ways that they don't mean it to be. So I do think it will be useful, at least for me, in helping reach a decision (just as it's been useful hearing from you and others with concerns). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- So I've been thinking a lot about this and will admit I find people who are suggesting we oppose this unban request raising points that resonate with me. In general is someone with the number of iBANs and Editing Restrictions that Lightbreather has, someone who can work in our collaborative environment? The serious suggestion that if we're going to unban we need to add another topic ban to the list only underscores this. Where I get hung-up, and why I'm not just ready to say "guess I'm opposed too", is that I feel Lightbreather is mission aligned with our project in many ways and what happened essentially happened over a two year period 7 years ago. Some of what has been present in previous appeals to the committee, but admittedly not the one that has been posted here, are reasons why she would be able to work collaboratively going forward in ways that did not happen last time. Are there any arb objections to asking her, via e-mail, if she would like to add anything to her statement in response to concerns that have been raised so far? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth if you have other priorities I would not begrudge you from bowing out of future conversations but I've appreciated your feedback and have found it helpful. That said I don't think it's fair to ascribe to all arbs a comment I made. I'm clearly trying to work through my thinking here and, again, your feedback is helpful but I don't know where I'm going to end up so it's doubly unfair to suggest others hold it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @DeCausa the fact that it was the entirety of her career is true but doesn't alter the fact that it was a 2 year period 7 years ago. People can and do change over the course of 7 years and I do believe in 2nd chances. The idea that the disruption continued until more recently is one I'm glad you've raised. I'll think some more about that. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Isaacl Wikipedia is not the same as it was when Lightbreater was banned. So even if she is the same person that doesn't mean it would be recieved the same way today. For most editors of LB's general profile, I think this change means that they are less likely to find a fit today than in 2015. However, for reasons Wugs and NYB mention in their comments (even as Wugs ends up a decline), the change in atmosphere might actually enable LB to be able to edit collaboratively even if she hasn't changed. I recognize might is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown thanks for your feedback. If there was a motion to unban would you want a 1 way iBAN? I am in no rush here and will be thinking about the feedback you, Sitush, and others have offered but would want to understand your preferences if we proceed to some sort of vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Noting for the record that I have recused from this matter. --Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- No objections, Barkeep. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- My comment in the previous appeal came before the turning point, but I stand by the general sentiment: bans prevent disruption and if we believe an editor can return to contribute productively and without issue, then we should seriously consider lifting the ban. Now, that sentiment doesn't mean we should take everyone at their word; the disruption we aim to prevent is not just edit-wars or incivility, but also time wasted in monitoring the editor and the general harm to the collegial relationships between editors. I'm of the same mind as Thryduulf: "So the question is has she changed enough that the risk of harm to others is low enough that we can safely give her another chance? Having thought about this for a couple of days now I'm still no closer to having an answer". Unlike Thryduulf, I don't really have the luxury of punting on that question.Given the views expressed here, my decision is to oppose unbanning at this time. The points offered by SilkTork and isaacl are what I think moved me away from support, and it's worth reiterating them. Isaac rightly points out that it's hard to gauge whether people have changed, and that fundamental disagreements with the ethos of the project are hard to overcome. While I may be more forgiving than Isaac, his point is correct, and regardless, what we should be considering is risk tolerance not forgiveness. SilkTork provides a sympathetic, though critical, assessment of the ban appeal, and ultimately concludes with a point that I think is compelling: given the extraordinary harm caused by LB, and the potential for that harm to recur, it would be irresponsible to subject editors to those risks without truly compelling evidence. And that all brings me back to Thryduulf's question. Given the potential for harm here, any uncertainty counsels declining the appeal. I'm personally not in the "no, never" camp, but the bar here is quite high to say the least. — Wug·a·po·des 20:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'd also like to thank everyone for their input so far. It may seem confusing or like a waste of time that we brought this up for public input, but the replies have been beyond helpful and genuinely changed my thinking. I appreciate the perspectives offered. — Wug·a·po·des 20:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Community discussion (unban appeal)
- I don't know anything about this situation beyond what I learned from reading WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather just now. But, this really looks like a no-brainer to unban. The problems that led to the ban were 7 years ago. That's plenty of time to cool off and reexamine your behavior. In 2020, she did some editing on simple.{wikipedia,wiktionary}.org which looks productive. She says she understands the issues that led to her ban and she's implicitly promising to stay away from the specific topics that were trouble areas for her by asking that the more specific topic-bans remain in place. If this isn't the kind of appeal which gets granted, we need our collective AGF meters recallibrated. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- For reference: previous unban appeal at Special:PermaLink/971701568#Motion: Lightbreather unban (July 2020) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- The case and unban appeal from July 2020 really should have been linked in the appeal to start with - shouldn't have been left to the community to link it. I'd like to see how LB plans to change their behavior rather than just a blank "I'll be a better Wikipedian". I'm not expecting an apology, but I'd really like to know how it's going to be better. Yes, the harrassment they experienced was awful, but that doesn't mean that they should not explain how they intend to deal with things if they are subjected to such harrasment again (and I sincerely hope they are not ... no one should deal with that, unfortunately, people .. suck.) Ealdgyth (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- As to why I'm leaning towards this not being a good idea - I don't see that LB has engaged with how they plan to change ... how are they going to avoid the behaviors that resulted in them being banned. What are they going to do different so as to avoid getting into that sort of disruptive behavior? I'm seeing nothing. While it's good that they deleted their blog, and I'm glad they now see their behavior as disruptive, I'm not seeing the last (and most important step) of showing that they know how to change their behavior so that things don't end up back with a ban again. I'm not being hard on them to be a PITA, I'm trying to help them actually make this work. Without some changes in their outlook, I fear the first time they run into difficulties/opposition ... they'll return to the behavior that got them banned. That's my concern, and until it's addressed, I'll have to go on the record as saying I don't think this is a good idea. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- See... here's where I have an issue with the arbs on this unban discussion. The idea that LB is "mission aligned with our project". No, I think it's pretty clear that LB's mission is to push a point of view on various topics - gun control, gender issues, politics, etc, and that they want to use Wikipedia to push that agenda forward. The fact that they aren't asking to lift those topic bans NOW isn't necessarily a repudiation of them wanting to push them in the future, because the unban request does not disavow wanting to edit in those topics, it just disavows asking about lifting those restrictions for another 12 months at least. (This statement should not be taken as me taking a stand on those particular issues against LB, just that I think the evidence from the ArbCom case and topic ban discussions is pretty clear that LB will push that POV in any way they can figure out) - so this is pretty clearly a case that they need to articulate HOW they will approach ALL issues differently than in the past - how will they work to collaborate with others that disagree with their positions and how will they work to ensure that they don't cause disruption. The appeal right there says LB wants to edit in Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red - gender issues were a big flashpoint for problems with LB in the past. I think I'd have a lot less concerns if they had signaled they wanted to edit in a topic area where they didn't have a history of issues - say Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility or Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. (And I really don't have the time to deal with this - I'm busy as hell in RL and have very limited wiki time - I'd much rather be doing something else rather than watching a trainwreck happen again like in 2020 for the previous unban request) Ealdgyth (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- As to why I'm leaning towards this not being a good idea - I don't see that LB has engaged with how they plan to change ... how are they going to avoid the behaviors that resulted in them being banned. What are they going to do different so as to avoid getting into that sort of disruptive behavior? I'm seeing nothing. While it's good that they deleted their blog, and I'm glad they now see their behavior as disruptive, I'm not seeing the last (and most important step) of showing that they know how to change their behavior so that things don't end up back with a ban again. I'm not being hard on them to be a PITA, I'm trying to help them actually make this work. Without some changes in their outlook, I fear the first time they run into difficulties/opposition ... they'll return to the behavior that got them banned. That's my concern, and until it's addressed, I'll have to go on the record as saying I don't think this is a good idea. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- More or less what I said last time: I'm not aware of all of the off-wiki business. The arbs will have to use their judgment about that. On the merits of the request, what I remember of this case is that there was a whole lot of unpleasantness involved from many people, including bad behavior from LB, bad behavior from others (no fewer than four of whom went on to be indeffed or banned), and lots of on- and off-wiki drama. None of these are reasons to vacate the outcome of the case themselves, but she's not asking for that. In fact, she's agreeing to the FoF and will continue to be under several strict sanctions. So unless what happened off-wiki trumps everything else (in which case, why would this even be a discussion), then considering (a) her acceptance that she was in the wrong, (b) the messy circumstances of the case, (c) the amount of time that's gone by (7 years is a very long time here), and (d) the extent to which existing sanctions limit opportunities for further problematic behavior, I'd say accept the appeal and see what happens (with the understanding that that there will be considerable scrutiny on her edits). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- This is a bit novel but I think I'd be cautiously in favour of a trial period. A three-month suspension of the ban (all other remedies to remain in full effect), followed by a community review. No consensus at that review would mean the ban is reinstated.—S Marshall T/C 16:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- The appeal in 2020 failed because the "more evidence about her blog" was evidence that Lightbreather doxxed two editors on it. While I won't name the two editors for obvious reasons, other community members should be aware that this happened. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 16:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)- "Dox" doesn't appear in that motion. I see a couple people mention off-wiki "criticism", and arbs mentioned offwiki evidence, but I don't see anywhere that the motion failed because of doxing. I do sort of recall Lightbreather determining the identity of the person who had been harassing her on- and off-wiki (and who was later globally banned by the foundation). Is that what you mean? It's an awkward situation because arbs probably don't want to disclose what off-wiki evidence they have, but the fact that they are somewhat putting it up to the community (whom they know does not have access to that private evidence) indicates -- or should indicate, at any rate -- that the offwiki evidence is not so egregious, or not so cut-and-dry, such that it should be immediately disqualifying. Right? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Last time there was off-wiki evidence the Arbs were not aware of. When made aware that changed the thinking of many of them. That is certainly one reason for this public vote this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I don't follow. Why have a public vote if arbs are primarily basing their decisions on information the rest of us don't have? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I assume when you wrote vote you really meant discussion? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: I sent in the evidence I'm referring to and the vote changes made me believe that it had something to do with that. The incident you're referring to is not the ones I'm referring to. To be slightly more specific without violating the policy myself, these were after LB was banned from Wikipedia. She linked these two editors to their real life identity for the purpose of claiming they were biased in their editing patterns. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 20:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Last time there was off-wiki evidence the Arbs were not aware of. When made aware that changed the thinking of many of them. That is certainly one reason for this public vote this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Dox" doesn't appear in that motion. I see a couple people mention off-wiki "criticism", and arbs mentioned offwiki evidence, but I don't see anywhere that the motion failed because of doxing. I do sort of recall Lightbreather determining the identity of the person who had been harassing her on- and off-wiki (and who was later globally banned by the foundation). Is that what you mean? It's an awkward situation because arbs probably don't want to disclose what off-wiki evidence they have, but the fact that they are somewhat putting it up to the community (whom they know does not have access to that private evidence) indicates -- or should indicate, at any rate -- that the offwiki evidence is not so egregious, or not so cut-and-dry, such that it should be immediately disqualifying. Right? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I support Lightbreather's request. It's been long enough and I believe the interest in rejoining us, and adhering to our policies and guidelines, is genuine. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Rhododendrites' comment makes sense to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not going to provide any input on this, either positive or negative. I appreciate being notified (thank you Barkeep49), but I'm not interested in doing the research required to offer an informed opinion. Thank you, and best to all. — Ched (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Before engendering an opinion on this, I would like to hear from @Sitush:, who has not been active since July. Sitush had provided offwiki evidence to Arbcom with some specifics, if I am reading the old appeal correctly. Sitush was extensively harassed. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Per the comments below from Dennis Brown, Sitush, SilkTork, GoldenRing, and others; I do not support an unban. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps an unban should be constructed as on a trial or probationary basis. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Striking per Dennis' comment below. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)- Sitush's comments below have convinced me that the request should be denied. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Although I am sympathetic to the idea of an unban after seven years, I just read the declined 2020 unban request and encourage other editors to do so as well. I would like to hear from Sitush and Dennis Brown before making a decision. Since Sitush has been on a wikibreak for six weeks, would the committee consider emailing him about this discussion? Cullen328 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- No, the wounds are still deep, the way it was framed, the constant drama. No, no, no. Some people are simply not suited to work in a collaborative environment. While we all gather around and sing Kumbaya, we seem to forget the WHOLE of the past. Yes, it's been 7 years, which seems to mean "a long time" to young people, but as I said in the last appeal, "I don't see anything here to change my mind. No information was introduced, so all I can go by is the past, and the past was full of drama. I haven't seen many people who were known for drama come back and not cause drama. We don't change our spots. " I'm sorry about the harassment that happened, I truly am, but that doesn't change the fact that she has and will be causing drama, a personality trait to create it, no different than some other banned editors who had exceptional skills but lacked the ability to get along, so we are better off without them. I'm likely to be in the minority, but I'm not going to sit by and say nothing. It's very easy, very easy, to be kind and nice in email, but that isn't the same as working with others, and ginning up drama to win an argument. Unbanning is a mistake. Putting all emotion aside, she is clearly a net negative for the project; a liability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 I appreciate the sentiment, but no, I would not want a one way ban. I've been here way too long to need that. The very fact that I've spoken out and said what others were thinking (judging from the multiple "thanks" I've received for the comment) always has risks that an editor would come gunning for the editor that spoke out against them, but I would hope she isn't that foolish. While she tried dragging my name in the mud, it didn't stick. Flaws and all, I'm a known quantity here. What I want is not to have to hear that name dragged up at Arb again, and being a betting man, I'm willing to take that bet if you unban her. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, I don't care if you post an email response from her, but I fully expect it to be what some "need to hear" or manipulation, to be honest. She is a known quantity. More reassurances or promises aren't going to change the history or personality traits, which is the problem. Taking down the blog recently doesn't prove anything, and for that matter, it can be resurrected with a simple database upload. The problem is that it existed to begin with, which is her right, but demonstrates the type of personality we are dealing with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I received notification via email from Barkeep49, thanks. My instinct is that I agree with Dennis Brown but I will have a think for a few hours before committing. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Had a think & a Google. I will be unhappy if Lightbreather is allowed to return to editing. I agree with the points raised by Dennis & Silk Tork, and think my own comments from the 2020 appeal remain valid. In addition, I note that it seems she has only in the last month or so deleted her blog and seems to have acknowledged that this was done specifically to aid this appeal, not because of some fundamental spot-changing. Leopards and their spots do matter: I speak from my own experience that our nature becomes somewhat entrenched/less likely to change as we age, and LB is no young tyro by her own admission (off-wiki). The idea that these attitudes are from 7 years ago is slightly misleading: they were still in evidence at the 2020 appeal & I think thereafter (off-wiki), although BLM may have supplanted gun control as her topic du jours. Is there any significance to her appeals coinciding with the summers of years of major elections in the US? Probably not, but it is a curious coincidence. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Just to note that I agree with Ealdgyth's post at 15:42 today regarding LB's purpose here being solely to push her agenda - it isn't about collating and disseminating the sum of all human knowledge etc but rather issues-based editing and righting what she perceives to be great wrongs. And she goes to extreme lengths to achieve it. Her blog & other off-wiki activities show that her agenda remains, & there is no indication that her style has changed. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Rather per Dennis Brown. If this were an appeal posted at AN, I would have no hesitation in opposing it. Accepting the case FoF is a good start, I guess, but I still don't think this cuts the mustard. Given the scale of the problems that led to the ban, I want to see a far more concrete plan for how to prevent those problems happening again before even thinking about this. I want some convincing reassurance that those problems aren't going to resurface and I'm not seeing it. Deleting the blog is a step that seems to suggest a lot without actually saying any of it. People above seem to be taking it to mean quite a lot, and of course it might mean all that but it might not, too. The reverse topic ban is an interesting innovation to try to control the problems but that leaves Talk: and UserTalk:Lightbreather as forums for disruption and I really think the problems here are ones that require considerable personal change to resolve, not bans from particular spaces. I'm hesitant to endorse what seems to amount to "no, never" in Dennis' comments but I really struggle to see how Lightbreather can convincingly show the sort of change that's necessary here when this is a largely anonymous forum. GoldenRing (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- It's an interesting bit of synchronicity that User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch was nominated for deletion immediately prior to this request by an editor who made an account 2 months prior to Lightbreather's last appeal. I would ask the arbitration committee to determine if these two editors are in some way affiliated. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 22:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)- Is it really synchronicity if it's two months away from one of multiple possible meaningful dates? What, she prepared for an appeal... by socking? Even the most cursory look at that user's edits shows that their views do not seem aligned with LB's, and I'd be more curious if they lined up with one of the various users known for arguing with her in the past (but not that curious). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: That's what I don't really get about this. They nominated the WP:KAFFEEKLATSCH page for deletion a few hours before the appeal despite having never interacted with LB onwiki before. I guess it's a random coincidence based on what you and others have said but it sure is a strange one. Chess (talk) (please use
{{reply to|Chess}}
on reply) 23:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Rhododendrites: That's what I don't really get about this. They nominated the WP:KAFFEEKLATSCH page for deletion a few hours before the appeal despite having never interacted with LB onwiki before. I guess it's a random coincidence based on what you and others have said but it sure is a strange one. Chess (talk) (please use
- I wouldn't read anything into it, no valid reason to. This just distracts from the real concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Is it really synchronicity if it's two months away from one of multiple possible meaningful dates? What, she prepared for an appeal... by socking? Even the most cursory look at that user's edits shows that their views do not seem aligned with LB's, and I'd be more curious if they lined up with one of the various users known for arguing with her in the past (but not that curious). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- To repeat some of what I said during the last appeal: the extensive disruptive conduct found in the case documents a pattern of behaviour that reflects a fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's current ethos. I appreciate that ethos may be flawed in numerous ways, but it is what it is, and editors who cannot contribute within its shortcomings (even if trying to overcome them) are bound to clash with others repeatedly. Without any supporting evidence, it's hard to predict if the editor will be able to work with the present version of the Wikipedia community, including its traditions and principles. (I acknowledge, though, that I am probably less forgiving than the average editor who participates in these types of discussions when it comes to uncollaborative actions.) isaacl (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: when an editor is unable to interact collaboratively with the community, after many attempts by others to provide feedback, and disagrees with basic tenets of accepted community behaviour, I am reluctant to assume that time away alone has changed the editor's engagement style. I know some editors give themselves of examples of editors that can change, saying they were a vandal before, and now they're not. Run-of-the-mill vandalism, though, while showing a lack of respect towards the project, doesn't necessarily show a lack of ability to engage. When an editor was trying very hard to have positive interactions and yet made significant missteps, I'm wary of assuming without some justification that future attempts at collaboration will go differently. isaacl (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: the interaction issues I am thinking of are related to the basics of Wikipedia collaboration, and haven't changed (they are not related to topic areas). Like Wugapodes, I'm not saying never, however for me some bridges were burnt, and so I remain very cautious. I agree things "might" go well. The risk/benefit ratio seems high to me, though, without more evidence of how the risk is mitigated. isaacl (talk) 21:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to favour giving second chances to people who make mistakes or have a flare up during a heated moment. Having looked at the case and Lightbreather's website (still available on web.archive) I have grave concerns that this person is too methodical and obsessive in their revenge to fit comfortably in a working environment where of necessity we sometimes have to work with people who disagree with our views. I also have a concern that the appeal is one that I tend to be uncomfortable with because it contains unresolved issues: "I was not the first Wikipedia editor to be harassed (including sexually) on- and off-wiki". In my experience banned users who make appeals that include references to the trigger (usually a person, or a situation) tend to still harbour resentments. Though the appeal does mention their inappropriate response to the trigger, " my own conduct became disruptive", it is couched in such a way as to explain away or justify the inappropriate response. The "including sexually" is a particular key point, and one which they mention in interviews and postings on the internet. It is clearly a touch point. We cannot protect people on Wikipedia from users who get annoyed and post offensive stuff off-Wikipedia. This happens. It's ugly and unpleasant, like road rage. But it happens. When it happens we do our best to get rid of such users, and when we have got rid of them we encourage them to stay away. And that works both ways. It doesn't matter who started it. What matters is that we don't really want the sort of personality and mind set that this user clearly had of seeking revenge. And I suspect that this user still has that mind set, and I don't feel we should be running the sort of social experiment in which other users may get hurt, just to see if this user has changed their mind set. SilkTork (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I was pinged because I commented two years ago (thanks Barkeep). At that time I was in favour of unbanning (at before the additional information came to light) provided all the other restrictions remained in place and she understood she would be on a very short leash. I later said
What sunk this appeal was apparently evidence that her attitude has not changed since the ban, so I'd suggest that if in the future (which may be six months, may be six years) she presents convincing evidence that she has changed then it is right that an appeal be considered.
so it's only fair that I follow that up now. This time the other restrictions are not being appealed, which is a good sign, and WormThatTurned's comments about the tone of the communication that the Committee have had with here are also encouraging. However, I also find myself in strong agreement with SilkTork. I was on the Committee at time of the original case and so I saw much of the harassment she received (all of the on-wiki stuff and from memory at least most of the off-wiki material too) and nobody should have to experience that - but sadly many people do and almost all of them do not use it as an excuse or justification for engaging in similar behaviour themselves. So the question is has she changed enough that the risk of harm to others is low enough that we can safely give her another chance? Having thought about this for a couple of days now I'm still no closer to having an answer, so I'm not going to offer an opinion either way beyond saying that if the appeal is granted it is done on the understanding that it is on a "one strike and you are out" basis - any harassment or disruption on her part will (not may, will) result in the ban being swiftly reinstated. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC) - I would oppose any unban that does not add a topic ban from American Politics to her list of editing restrictions. I have no faith that she would make what is already a tense topic area any better in an election year. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I too oppose any unban, for similar reasons to Dennis Brown and SilkTork. My involvement with this case has been limited to interaction with LB 2014/15. I've not been involved since then. LB says: "I was not the first Wikipedia editor to be harassed (including sexually) on- and off-wiki, but my own conduct became disruptive." My take on that is similar to SilkTork's. I read it as "I only became disruptive because I was harassed (including sexually) on- and off-wiki". LB's egocentric agenda-driven WP:BATTLE drama pre-dated, and was independent of, any harassment. It was her norm. It's disturbing that that recognition and self-awareness is still not there all these years later. It strongly suggests that her behaviour won't have changed. Everyone has the possibility to reassess, gain perspective, change, develop etc. Dennis Brown refers to a "personality trait to create" drama. That's the problem. A short fuse and a strong agenda is one thing. I think that's something that can change. But the narcissistic underpinning (this being but one example) suggests to me more of an immutable personality trait. That's not going to change. I think that narcissism drives her to be what SilkTork calls "methodical and obsessive" in revenge. Most likely bringing her back would just cause damage. And for what benefit? SilkTork's warning not to engage in an unban experiment "in which other users may get hurt, just to see if this user has changed their mind set" needs to be heeded. DeCausa (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: "what happened essentially happened over a two year period 7 years ago". True, but those two years were the entirety (bar 12 edits) of her WP career. It did happen 7 years ago, but the blog only came down in the last month or so. So she carried on her campaign over those 7 years. DeCausa (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support the unban request per WormTT, Rhododendrites and Drmies. --Andreas JN466 15:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I have had no prior engagement with LB (as far as I can recall) and only happened to take a look at this motion and read up on the linked history over the last hour or so. A few comments/questions:
- Several arbs/commentators have stated effectively that the "what happened essentially happened over a two year period 7 years ago". I don't see how to reconcile that claim with the facts as I understand them. If I take the comments that the arbs made during the previous unban appeal ("evidence of continued hostility", "this is a continuing problem" etc) at face value, the problem persisted till at least Jul 2020. Wouldn't then it be more accurate to say that the issues lasted for (at least) 7 years till (at most) 2 years ago rather than the other way around?
- I also see LB's deletion of the blog a month back being mentioned as one reason why an unban may be merited. But when the stated reason for the deletion is "In preparation for another appeal of my Wikipedia site ban", I don't know whether it represents a "change of heart" or just a tactical move. In this regards, see also SilkTork analysis of LB's admission of fault.
- IMO off-wiki harrasment is categorically worse than almost any on wiki disruption, for the same reason that BLP violations are usually worse than other content problems. They both can cause harm to people in real life. Moreover, such harassment has a chilling effect because how is collaborative editing possible when one fears that falling afoul of certain editors can lead to real-world harm? (And yes, this point applies to whomever sexually harassed LB; I'm very comfortable saying that that person, if identified, should never edit wikipedia... even though that would still be an inadequate response since it will not lessen the harm done to LB).
- IRL and, I believe, on-wiki, I tend to extend the rope quite a bit and am quick to forgive. But, I have also learned to be wary of being magnanimous with house money, i.e., patting myself on the back for AGFing or giving second chances when the consequences of doing so undeservedly falls on other people. I hope the arbs too will keep that in mind.
- Abecedare (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I just want to extract the claim made and/or insinuated above that Lightbreather is a POV-pusher or here just to push an agenda. There is clear evidence of various forms of disruptive editing on her part (as detailed in the old FoF and elsewhere -- and as I said before if there's evidence of egregious off-wiki behavior that arbcom has, they should just make this decision without community input), but there is a difference between focusing on one or a set of topics and POV pushing in a way that conflicts with WP:NPOV. I'm quite certain there were some specific diffs we could find that are POV-pushing, but that doesn't line up with the content of her edits that I'm familiar with. LB absolutely focused her efforts on two areas where she (not to mention others on Wikipedia and in the press) found evidence of pre-existing bias: gender bias and pro-gun bias. Eight years on from the GGTF stuff, the reality of our gender biases are more widely accepted/understood than they were in the time of GGTF, and there are fewer editors for whom bringing up gender bias triggers hostility these days. But then, as now, trying to contend with gun activists on Wikipedia (anonymous or otherwise), can be downright scary. The treatment LB and others received on- and off-wiki, combined with having done a poorer job than she has of concealing my off-wiki identity, are why I almost never touch those articles. But LB wasn't chilled by the threats and harassment. Even today, 7 years after being blocked, she's still the top contributor to high-traffic, high-activity, and hard to edit articles like gun politics in the United States, National Rifle Association, assault weapon, gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Federal Assault Weapons Ban, Assault weapons legislation in the United States, Nazi gun control argument, National Instant Criminal Background Check System, gun violence, Gun Control Act of 1968, small arms trade, etc. (nevermind the articles focused more on gender/diversity). None of this is to say she didn't cross some lines (see my main comment above), but to say that she's just here to push an agenda doesn't seem like a fair characterization of her actual contributions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I wasn't involved in her gun control editing so can't comment on that. But I am surprised at the above comments on her gender politics editing. Specifically, "the reality of our gender biases are more widely accepted/understood than they were in the time of GGTF" as though she was ahead of her time. I don't believe that there would be any greater appetite now compared to 2015 to accept her shoe-horning her WP:BATTLE gender perceptions into multiple WP forums. I think that is a very regrettable comment. Although I think it would be much better for LB to remain banned, I can see the outcome is pointing towards her unbanning. Comments like that are, in my view, only likely to be seen as validation of her history by LB, increasing the likelihood of her old behaviours reappearing on her return. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- I am not going to opine on the merits of the appeal, but I'm writing to disagree with one of the community comments above. It has been suggested that it should be a strike against Lightbreather's appeal that she mentions off-wiki sexual harassment to which she was subjected. The terms "harassment" in general and "sexual harassment" in particular cover a wide range of behavior, some far more serious than others, and some easier to move beyond than others, though none acceptable. In this instance, at least one instance of off-wiki sexual harassment to which Lightbreather was subjected was depraved, disturbing, and extreme. Although that incident was not the fault of any current Wikipedia editor, I cannot fault Lightbreather if she remains angry that it happened and considers it relevant to the issue now before the Committee. I address no other issues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- My view hasn’t changed from the 2020 unban appeal: Lightbreather’s behaviour was so egregiously bad, she should simply be invited to find another hobby. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- After hearing from Dennis Brown and Sitush, I must oppose the unbanning. The harassment that Newyorkbrad describes was horrific and I am very sorry that it happened. But in the end, I think that Lightbreather is temperamentally unsuited to this project. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- She only took down her blog for her appeal here. I ask, if she wasn't planning on appealing would she have taken down the blog? Based on the history I don't think so. So this whole blog bit is a red herring if you ask me. Valeince (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oh dear oh dear oh dear. I have an extraordinary/execrable ability to write in four thousand words that which could be succinctly presented in forty. So I'm reluctant to dive in here (bullshit, I live for any opportunity to do this).
I learned, yesterday, of this appeal. I also became more interested, as I'd heard that lightbreather had done off-wiki 'badness', so reading that 'lightbreather.com no longer exists' led me immediately to our dear friend archive.org, where nothing goes to die on the internet.
I thence learned that I, dear reader, was quoted in the very first blog entry. The first person who directly interacted with lightbreather on WP, with the grossly offensive and patently guerilla-warfaring message "Please read the ‘talk’ page for the AWB article. The matter has been discussed previously. Scrubbing the word cosmetic from the article because it doesn’t appear in the law isn’t a valid reason. The cited sources state that the differences are cosmetic. It is the cited sources that matter here." Outrageous! Scandalous! Scurrilous!
Thus began my interactions with lightbreather. It was not a pleasant affair. I argued policy, I argued common sense, I argued for comity and civility, I wikilawyered, I think at one point I got hit with one of my first 3RR's, an extreme rarity for me. I argued until I was blue in the face.
lightbreather routinely made my blood boil with the take-no-prisoners, 'my point of view, even if it isn't notable, must be in this article because it is under-represented' attitude. Um, sources, wtf? WP:WEIGHT, wtf? Do these words ring a bell?
So, enough bullshit preface. My first inclination - the first thought that came to my mind when I read "In addition, I have deleted my blog. (There is no longer a lightbreather.com.)" was...What in the actual fuck? So...you are scrubbing (see what I did there) your past bad behavior in order to plead for return to the project? That is most certainly NOT the action of a person who is 'sincerely sorry'. Contrition is shown by embracing every shitty thing you said in the past, owning it, and letting it live on forever, notwithstanding archive.org. I've said a metric shite-ton of shitty things in my life, online, and I regret perhaps 440kg of it. But I haven't deleted it. It's (nearly) all still out there, bleeding warts and all. Quite a fair share with followup contrition and acknowledgement that man, I can say some goddamned shitty things. The fact that I'm generally an empathetic misanthrope rather explains that fairly predictable path.
So, one would, by this juncture, assume that it's an 'oh holy fuck no' from me. But it's not.
While it's true that a leopard can't change it's spots...the spots can gray with time (I don't know if this is zoologically correct though, I wonder if there's a place where I can go to read up on that?)
The whole AWB/lightbreather affair, for me, was quite a long time ago. Like lightbreather, I am no spring chicken. And with many moltings, many changing of the seasons, one can learn a thing or two or three or sixty three. About others, and about oneself. One can also, pleasingly, learn not to give a shit about the world's ills at times, because I don't have the goddamned time to spare, and my back hurts. And fighting wars on wikipedia is about as soul-deadening a task as there is. Notwithstanding wars on facebook youtube reddit instagram tiktok twitter nextdoor news-site-comments and whatever comes down the pike next year.
I still edit here. Sometimes I dive into something that may be contentious/tendentious, but largely my heart has enough ache in it already, thank you very much, if someone comes at me hammer and tong, well, peace be upon you, I'll hit 'random' and fix some grammatical errors to restore my own inner peace.
I've no idea if lightbreather has changed for the better or worse. As a card-carrying misanthrope, my inclination is to cynically assume that if lightbreather comes back, it'll just gradually devolve into drama again and a fairly swift ban again.
But...I think this is being approached as if it's some sort of 'once it's done, there's no turning back'. True - those skilled in the ways of wiki can stretch the length of their stay after transgression with wikilawyering-craft. But it doesn't last. Not for the recalcitrant.
Is there anything stopping this from being a very carefully crafted 'unban'? We know the bad behaviors. We have lightbreather's word, for what it's worth, that they are sincere and have changed. Okay. You're unbanned. Commit just one 3RR? You are banned again, no appeals, save your damned lightbreath, you haven't changed. Start warring over touchy cultural articles? Are you actually that stupid? Imagine. Banned. lightbreather isn't a child, and whether she's changed or not can only be found in returning. But if lightbreather colors outside the lines, even once, then we hang a little sign on the user page, "Definitely does not play well with others, confirmed", and the story ends there, forevermore.
I do think back to the 'lightbreather.com is gone' aspect which conflicts with genuine contrition. I dislike that I'm arguing for a second chance after a fashion.
But I do wonder if there's a certain degree of anticipated schadenfreude going on in the back of my mind...
yup, misanthrope, confirmed. Anastrophe (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC) - I wasn't around for the original case and know next to nothing about the reasons for the original ban. But like others, I was curious about the blog and found it archived. I was surprised to see that she wrote a blog about her unsuccessful 2020 appeal, in which she reposted her email unban request and other correspondence with arbcom. Because I've read that, I can see how little the unban request changed between 2020 and 2022. Also, the blog expands on the reasons for the unban request and what she intended to edit and why. Given that the 2020 appeal was denied because of the blog, the fact that she then blogged about the denial suggests a real ... I can't think of the word for "lack of necessary change." Stubborness? WP:IDHT? In the 2020 appeal blog post, she defends herself by saying that her blog has only 230 readers, and that the information she posted about Wikipedia editors on the blog was available via Wikipedia history or Google. Talk about not getting it. And then the fact that the 2022 appeal is phrased so similar to the 2020 appeal tells me that little has changed in two years. The impression I get is that this is someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to fight a righteous war, a war that she is willing to fight even from exile. Oppose. Levivich😃 16:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Support an unban under some trial arrangement. I interacted quite a bit with lightbreather quite a bit in a friendly way but then faded out because I decided that IMHO they were disingenuous and manipulative in an immensely clever and skilled way and so caution is in order. And I'm not familiar with the case which was later. But after that many years everybody deserves a chance. North8000 (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Requests for enforcement
Gillcv
The consensus here is that the partial block which has already been applied is appropriate. Gillcv is warned that further disruptive editing may result in a topic ban from the pseudoscience and/or CAM areas, or other additional sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Gillcv
[6] 29 August 2022, 15:22 UTC
About Hi GoldenRing. You have misread the time. They were warned at 15:22 UTC, not 16:22 UTC. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC) @Gillcv: See law of holes. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning GillcvStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by GillcvI the wikipedia entry "Cupping therapy" I introduced the following paragraph; However, this is not the first situation when folk medicine is unjustly blamed by "scientific" medicine. The negative effects of suction cup therapy may also be due to improper handling of the suction cups. It is true that there are also negative effects of suction cup therapy, but which "scientifically" designed drug does not? But there are also scientific studies that rehabilitate this therapy.[1] This paragraph was deleted twice. On the second re-introduction, in the motivation, I wrote that, from my own experience, I know that the therapy, applied correctly, is useful. The last deletion was motivated as follows: the source is not reliable. In other words, the author of the second deletion allows himself to make me a liar. In addition, without documenting himself, he says that the journal is not reliable! Here is the journal information: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-acupuncture-and-meridian-studies. Gillcv (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
References
Statement by GoldenRing
@Tgeorgescu: you are right, my bad. I'll go figure out how to get wiki to always give me times in UTC. GoldenRing (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Gillcv
|
Pranesh Ravikumar
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning Pranesh Ravikumar
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Pranesh Ravikumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- WP:ARBIPA
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 04:17, 28 August 2022 Removes a reliably sourced addition claiming it's RGW. (1st revert)
- Follows it up with this intimidation/accusatory message to the editor who added it over what's essentially a comment dispute at this stage. Warned for disruption. They copypaste the warning message, claim that I'm hounding them and other things in retaliation (diff).
- 05:13, 30 August 2022 Removes it again. (2nd revert) Warned for edit warring.
- [13:28, 30 August 2022] (revdelled) Removes it again and replaces it with a cherrypicked copypaste while citing a different source. (3rd revert)
- [15:39, 30 August 2022] (revdelled) Same as above but this time they cite the real source. (4th revert) Warned for copyright violation.
- In the meantime we have a long winded discussion on my talk page which ends with them insisting on a personal standard that for "verification doesn't guarantee inclusion" to apply, one must present a refutation to the source.
- 13:10, 2 September 2022 Partial restoration of their addition which includes similar close paraphrasing (Compare with source) and without any attempts to gain consensus through a third opinion or an RFC for it. They are well aware of ONUS due to the above discussion but they simply dismiss the dispute by claiming that it "wasn't sensibly disputed". (5th revert)
- If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 15:43, 29 August 2022 and 13:01, 27 May 2021.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Discussing something with them itself is a pain due to the fact that they just tend to double down whenever a mistake is pointed out, argue against straw men and it's ultimately fruitless when they just go IDHT. In addition note that this behavior may be motivated by the nature of the content itself, the initial addition reflected negatively on the Premiership of Narendra Modi which they first tried to remove and then tried to minimise/distract from by adding tangential material. They have also previously been blocked for POV pushing and warned for copyright violations.
Overall a particularly frustrating combination of uncollaborative combative behavior, edit warring, copyright violations and a general refusal and/or inability to understand and follow policies and guidelines. Tayi Arajakate Talk 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Now you're just lying. I didn't admit to anything, all I accepted was that there was minor error, a difference between "15 out of 16" and "16 out of 16". The content you were trying to remove is much more than that. Neither Libreravi nor TrangaBellam who introduced and restored the section seem to agree that it included "misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims". No one else supported your position, you clearly didn't have a consensus and you were arguing against things no one said. Case in point saying that "Claims like Indian government is operating a Gestapo would require peer-reviewed scholarly sources" (diff) when there was no mention of any gestapo in the addition.
- And the objection against your addition is simple, that it deviates from the subject of the article. You can't wish that away by claiming that "there can be no sensible objection". Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding D4iNa4's statement, I'll stand by my messages at User talk:D4iNa4#September 2022, the evidence is linked in the messages themselves for anyone to see what's what.
- I should point out though, the discussion had 5 editors who all opposed inclusion at the time when D4iNa4 decided to comment at 16:17, 3 September 2022 (after reinstating the disputed content) and pinged 4 different editor of their choice while seeking support for inclusion; not an RfC, 3O, Wikiproject or noticeboard. Even then I gave it quite a bit of latitude. It's also irrelevant whether those being canvassed are in good standing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra, do you consider any of my messages to D4iNa4 unjustified? I try my best to discuss content disputes but it becomes a problem if all I get is a complete dismissal of policy based concerns and forceful insertion of disputed material without seeking appropriate venues of dispute resolution, which is something both Ravikumar and Di4Ni4 did and continue to do so.
- For instance, Ravikumar's present response to something being undue or coatracking is that it's just JDL, earlier it was "not sensible", Di4Ni4 argument was an unfounded accusation of stonewalling and followed by a comment saying that there was no "actual explaination". Both of them tried to restore the material while the discussion was ongoing and largely against inclusion.Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark, to see what they think about this. I should also add, since both Ravikumar and Di4Ni4 keep bandying them around claiming that they support inclusion (as if it takes away from the conduct issues), as far as I can tell all they have said is that there may be scope for inclusion which is not something I even disagree with, rather my position is that it isn't due at the present state of the article. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Deepfriedokra, I said "now you're just lying" because Ravikumar said "Tayi Arajakate admitted their edits involved misrepresentation of sources and over-exaggeration not supported by sources." What am I supposed to say if someone puts words in my mouth? And where's the evidence that I was stonewalling? This is not battleground behavior, throwing accusations over a content dispute is. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- D4iNa4, 2 of those reverts are of copyrighted material and "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (see WP:ONUS). It wasn't my responsibility to open the talk page discussion in the first place but on those who want to include it, yet I did. And yeah I'll stand by the message because you made a serious conduct accusation sans any evidence which is a personal attack and used it as a justification to restore content that was removed on policy based objections. This was your very first action in the dispute and you didn't even bother to join the talk page discussion until the material was removed again.
- And just because something is sourced does not mean it has to included, the same policy linked above clearly states that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, this has already been stated in the discussion. It's ironic that you are talking about CIR and IDHT. This conduct pretty much mimics that of Ravikumar's. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- And "Conflict between India and Pakistan" does have a lot to do with "Indian government", both also fall under ARBIPA. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Pranesh Ravikumar
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Pranesh Ravikumar
Why this report is being filed when the content dispute has been already resolved? I am saying this in the sense that there can be no sensible objection to the content that exists in the present version.
The content which I had removed included misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims.
But the content which I wrote was in fact expansion and was based on quality sources like Christophe Jaffrelot.
I admit I had to focus more on rewriting, but I haven't breached copyrights since.
Tayi Arajakate admitted their edits involved misrepresentation of sources and over-exaggeration not supported by sources.[9]
After this, I discussed reliably sourced content backed with multiple sources with Tayi Arajakte on their talk page, but only to see them failing to provide a sensible reason to remove the reliably sourced information. After nearly 3 days of discussion I restored the content.[10]
I was following WP:BRD here and gave every opportunity to Tayi Arajakte to provide a good explanation behind the removal of the content backed with quality sources. I also told Tayi Arajakte how they can justify the removal.
If the community was consulted over this content then I am sure it will favor my position that the reliably sourced content should not be removed. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: Depends on the claims that are being made but scholarly sources are more ideal supporting the text which is exceptional, though the dispute was not just about the use of news sources but also the misrepresentation of the existing sources. I had 3 DS alerts this year, 1 was about ARBIPA, 1 was about BLP and 1 was about South Asian social groups. But that is clearly not indicative of any 'disruption' because alerts are notifications, not warnings, the message box of DS alert clearly notes "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade: I wanted to address the reverts and warning on my talk page this is why I made the message on user's talk page to address all this together but from next time I will ensure addressing content-related issues on the talk page of the article. I am not brushing off the copyright violation but stating how it could be avoided. Isn't it more important to show how one has recognised what went wrong and try to avoid making the same mistake next time? I had a reading of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE and I promise not to violate copyrights again. You should see Talk:Premiership of Narendra Modi#Use of investigative agencies where Tayi Arajakte is aggressively relying on his WP:JDL-based explanations to get rid of the content reliably sourced to the best available source of this subject after edit warring to remove it here without gaining consensus. At least 3 far more experienced users (including 2 admins) have agreed with my position. You shouldn't be topic banning a user who is on the correct side in this dispute. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC) was
- @Deepfriedokra: You can trust me with another chance. I read the new inputs provided here, especially that of Vanamonde93. Once again I am reassuring you that I will be more careful and the problems that have been highlighted about my editing with regard to handling content dispute and copyrights won't emerge again because I am capable to avoid any further issues with my editing. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra: It could be because I got reported for the first time but I can avoid any issues with my editing from occurring again. I edit a good number of articles related to India where I have been productive. I would reiterate that you can trust me with another chance. Thanks Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by D4iNa4
Making my statement here because of 2 frivolous warnings I received from Tayi Arajakate right after I made my comment on talk page.
First warning falsely claims that I violated WP:NPA because of the word "WP:STONEWALLING" I used here, followed by the false claim of having a "rough consensus", despite no consensus is developed in less than 2 hours for removing reliably sourced content. No evidence of WP:NPA violation was ever provided.
Second warning falsely claims that I violated WP:CANVASSING by notifying the long term contributors in good standing who have edited this article for years.
Either this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior or a WP:CIR issue, or a combination of both. You can't go around spamming frivolous warnings just to get discourage your opponent in a content dispute. Admins need to take a look at this misconduct of Tayi Arajakte. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Tayi Arajakte adds in response to my comment above that "
I'll stand by my messages at User talk:D4iNa4#September 2022
", and this is after being already told how they are wrong with their battleground mentality. This shows there is not only a competence issue with Tayi Arajakte but also IDHT. You don't hold high ground when you have yourself made 3 reverts[11][12][13] to remove reliably sourced content just before you are starting the discussion on talk page.[14] D4iNa4 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC) - @Deepfriedokra: "Conflict between India and Pakistan". Though it has nothing to do with this particular subject. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by TrangaBellam
It is ridiculous that Tayi —who is one of the most competent and cooperative editors about Indian topics— is being considered for a TBan. That too, based on flimsy evidence from someone who is under an indefinite AE sanction (since 2018) and has since commited less than 500 edits. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde93
(I had intended to sit this one out *sigh*). I read the section of Jaffrelot's book that's under dispute. That source is indeed the best on the topic that I am aware of. It constitutes three substantial paragraphs discussing how the administration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has used its investigative agencies to intimidate and/or harass political opponents. The section begins with a passing mention of a historical instance when a politician of the opposing party used the same tactics. If I were interested in genuinely improving that section, I would summarize what the source had to say about the Modi administration. Instead, PraneshRavikumar has decided to lead with the single sentence that's critical of a different politician. This was after he first tried blanking the section. His edit-summary was dreadful, too. I can't help but believe PR has an axe to grind here, and would benefit from some time away from this dispute. A logged warning is the minimum I'd recommend: South Asian politics requires more collaboration and less belligerence, and his attitude toward the copyvio situation was...cavalier. I see no substantive evidence here against Tayi Arajakate. The templated warning wasn't necessary; no attacks were made; but I don't think highly of D4iNa4's choice to jump right into an edit-war after 2+ years of not touching the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by RegentsPark
I haven't followed all this carefully (RL busyness) but I don't think a tban for Tayi Arajakate is a good idea. No comment on Pranesh Ravikumar. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Pranesh Ravikumar
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Since when do we require peer reviewed scholarly sources? What we require is content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking."-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like Pranesh Ravikumar needs a TBAN from ARBPIA. Notice they have three(?) DS alerts. Will await further input. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- Still waiting for more input. Noting @Seraphimblade:'s comment. Is Pranesh Ravikumar's counter argument sufficient? However, I now wonder if Tayi Arajakte does not need a TBAN, based on D4iNa4's statement. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Pranesh Ravikumar's comment on my talk is germane here -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like enough battle behavior to go around. I will say that, "Now you're just lying," falls below my expectations for the conduct of members of the Community. So, I'd like another admin to unravel this knot of naughtiness. Maybe TBANs for Pranesh Ravikumar and Tayi Arajakat? Yes, Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark will offer the needed insight. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @D4iNa4: Are you under an indefinite AE sanction? For what area? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Vanamonde93, for bringing light where there was darkness. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- So, with that, the false trails of the red herrings have been cleared away and I am back to my original impression-- that Pranesh Ravikumar needs "some time away from the subject area" . I apologize to @Tayi Arajakate: to whom the false trail had led. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I do not find Pranesh Ravikumar's assurances very reassuring. It is a pity this awakening of awareness did not occur sooner. Assuming the TBAN is enacted, we can hope this new-found awareness will help them appeal it in the future. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- So, with that, the false trails of the red herrings have been cleared away and I am back to my original impression-- that Pranesh Ravikumar needs "some time away from the subject area" . I apologize to @Tayi Arajakate: to whom the false trail had led. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Vanamonde93, for bringing light where there was darkness. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- @D4iNa4: Are you under an indefinite AE sanction? For what area? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like enough battle behavior to go around. I will say that, "Now you're just lying," falls below my expectations for the conduct of members of the Community. So, I'd like another admin to unravel this knot of naughtiness. Maybe TBANs for Pranesh Ravikumar and Tayi Arajakat? Yes, Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark will offer the needed insight. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Pranesh Ravikumar's comment on my talk is germane here -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Still waiting for more input. Noting @Seraphimblade:'s comment. Is Pranesh Ravikumar's counter argument sufficient? However, I now wonder if Tayi Arajakte does not need a TBAN, based on D4iNa4's statement. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like Pranesh Ravikumar needs a TBAN from ARBPIA. Notice they have three(?) DS alerts. Will await further input. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not impressed with Pranesh Ravikumar here. I'm not sure why they brought the content discussion to a user talk page rather than the article talk page; that's generally unproductive. And I'm even less impressed with repeated copyright violations, and then characterizing that with a brushoff
I admit I had to focus more on rewriting...
. I'm inclined to agree with a topic ban here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Carter00000
Carter00000 is indefinitely topic banned from Xinjiang, broadly construed --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Carter00000
At WP:ITNC, the user has bludgeoned arguments for excluding any link to Uyghur genocide in the blurb, essentially resulting the same argument being restated about 8 times. These include:
After being cautioned about bludgeoning on their talk page and about beating a dead horse in the discussion itself, the user continued to bludgeon the discussion and then pinged a bunch of editors who were involved at a discussion on another page:
N/A
I believe that the above shows that the editor has bludgeoned, has been warned about bludgeoning, and has no interest in stopping bludgeoning. I'd ask that the user be blocked under general sanctions for 72 hours for repeatedly bludgeoning at WP:ITNC with respect to the Uyghur genocide article. I believe this will allow time for the user to calm down and will prevent further disruption in this thread. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Carter00000Statement by Carter00000On the initial edits, I would like to note that the edits linked were made at different stages of the ITN nomination. I felt that given that the discussion had entered into new stages, it was reasonable to address the same concerns again, given that each stage was for a separate action. I would like to note that I stopped making the above argument after being warned. The two subsequent edits made related to the nomination in general, and was to address issues with the process of the nomination, given the number of concerns raised by other editors. The concerns were cited to editors who had raised those issues in brackets, pinging them at the same time as a means to request their comments on the discussion. The pings to the five editors in the second comment was to request comments from all participants of a concurrent discussion on the subject on a different page. Carter00000 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by WaltCipWhatever sanction that is deemed necessary, I'll support, ncluding a topic ban from WP:ITN/C for extraordinarily disruptive conduct, even after being asked to stop. Yes, I recognize I may have partially prompted this by closing the discussion here, but these closures are not atypical on ITN/C once a consensus is reached, as it had been, and the proper thing to do then is discuss any changes to the blurb at WP:ERRORS. Even when he is the sole voice of opposition, Carter00000 has been dominating the discussion both on WP:ERRORS and WP:ITN/C in a way that represents battleground mentality.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Dennis BrownAfter filing multiple Arb cases and ANI cases, I think it's time for a topic ban from ITN. This is just ridiculous. Since they dragged me to Arb (which was immediately declined for not having merit), I will comment in this section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by InvadingInvaderI have not had any direct interactions with Carter outside of this most recent debacle on Xinjiang, but I'm not hearing happy notes about this guy. I do think he frequently disrupts consensus, and if he/she/they had spent more time on Talk:2022 with regard to Xinjiang, I believe many arguments he would bring up would be redundant and unproductive. Result concerning Carter00000
|
MrLag525
Blocked indef by GeneralNotability as a regular admin action. El_C 18:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning MrLag525
Discussion concerning MrLag525Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MrLag525Statement by (username)Result concerning MrLag525
|