Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests | Case Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:08, 4 May 2015 editL235 (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators27,367 edits Reverted 1 edit by The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk): Not an arbitrator or clerk . (TW)← Previous edit Revision as of 14:10, 4 May 2015 edit undoKnowledgekid87 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers96,809 edits →Preliminary statements: StatementNext edit →
Line 118: Line 118:
<h4>Questions/replies to arbitrators</h4> <h4>Questions/replies to arbitrators</h4>
{{u|Euryalus}} Lodged in anger and haste would be closer to my meaning, but I am going to bed soon. ] (]) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC) {{u|Euryalus}} Lodged in anger and haste would be closer to my meaning, but I am going to bed soon. ] (]) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

=== Statement by uninvolved Knowledgekid87 ===

It is going to be very interesting what comes out of this case, LB already has I-bans in place. What I am getting at is why bring this here rather than just blocking her indef? The reason I can see is that Karanacs is involved here. - ] (]) 14:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


==Preliminary decision== ==Preliminary decision==

Revision as of 14:10, 4 May 2015

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
This case is currently open, so no changes may be made to this page, and unauthorised edits may be reverted.
If you wish to submit evidence in this case, go to the evidence page. Proposals for the final decision may be made at the workshop.

Case opened on 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Do not edit this page unless you are an arbitrator or clerk. Statements on this page are copies of the statements submitted in the original request to arbitrate this dispute, and serve as verbatim copies; therefore, they may not be edited or removed. (However, lengthy statements may be truncated – in which case the full statement will be copied to the talk page. Statements by uninvolved editors during the Requests phase will also be copied to the talk page.) Evidence which you wish to submit to the committee should be given at the /Evidence subpage, although permission must be sought by e-mail before you submit private, confidential, or sensitive evidence.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. The Workshop may also be used for you to submit general comments on the evidence, and for arbitrators to pose questions to the parties. Eventually, arbitrators will vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision; only arbitrators may offer proposals as the Proposed Decision.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

  • Piecemeal dispute resolution has been attempted at AN, ANI, and through the Arbitration Committee, which have resulted in piecemeal interaction bans. (some linked below)
  • Also, Lightbreather has been previously topic-banned from gun control.

Preliminary statements

Statement by Karanacs

Lightbreather is currently a party to 4 interaction bans (mutual with Hell in a Bucket and Eric Corbett , Mike Searson cannot interact with her , and she cannot interact with Sitush ), and over the last year she has proposed two more (Two kinds of pork and Scalhotrod)), and had an earlier voluntary mutual Iban from (former editor Sue Rangell).

I believe these were necessitated because Lightbreather edits with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, forum-shops/canvasses, and refuses to examine her own behavior. Recent examples:

Ownership / admin-shopping
  • 31 Mar initiated an ANI asking an admin to stop others from editing articles until her injury healed
    • Did not like response, so she pinged specific admins
    • When they didn't respond, asked on their talk pages
    • 25 Apr continues to bring up the same issue
Baiting/Battleground

LB is still upset over a comment made by Eric Corbett in July 2014 (see Feb 20 diff below). 26 Apr

  • discussion at AN on whether LB should be topic-banned from gun control
  • LB went to Eric's page to follow Sitush, ABFing that Sitush would be talking about her. . "you were getting over stimulated.... I've learned that when this happens, you might be talking about me on Eric's page - risky as it is for him""
  • Responds to 3-week-old comments with the edit summary "Do you people never tire of self-congratulation?". Original comments were an observation that the KaffeeKlatsch was essentially defunct. LB's post was a defense of the KaffeeKlatsch in the form of an attack on those opposed.
  • When he didn't respond immediately, she tried again
  • "When you start discussions here - which is what we call these things with headers on talk pages - you know full well that your watchers are gonna come along and stroke your ego and you'll all lift your virtual pints and say "Hurrah!" or "Good on ya!" or whatever the hell you say, and speak poorly of your enemies (or the insects or rejects or however you think of us)."
Refusal to accept warnings
  • 26 Apr I explained why I considered her actions baiting. Her responses were to point at others:
  • (LB barely edited in March)
  • 26 Feb When caught canvassing, speculated others were doing it
  • 20 Feb When asked to strike a personal attack, she tried to justify the attack and referred to a 7-month-old comment that Eric made
  • 12 Feb implies she is warned because of sexism

When an editor gathers that many interaction bans, their behavior should be examined to determine whether there is a larger problem. I ask that those under Ibans with her be allowed to give a statement and/or evidence in this case.

@GorillaWarfare, I do not believe it is necessary to add other named parties. The specific interactions have been examined by the community, which has imposed - or declined to impose - interaction bans. The primary question is whether this series of Ibans, combined with other behavior, shows a pattern of misbehavior or not. Evidence about the behavior of others can be added as mitigating factors for LB's conduct without them being named as parties. If other parties are added, I request the list be limited to only those with an active Iban with LB, and that the scope is narrowed to only their interactions with LB. I do not want to see this case devolve into discussing how user:XYZ acted with user:ABC or on topic:DEF that was not directly related to Lightbreather. Karanacs (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare, the pattern of misbehavior of other editors would likely extend beyond the areas in which Lightbreather has edited, and, as such, a separate case for each of those editors, if necessary, would seem more appropriate. Her behavior is not confined neatly to a single topic area, which would seem to make it difficult to define a narrow enough case unless it is focused on LB and her interactions. The more parties are added, the longer the case will likely take, and that seems unfair to LB, who will be editing under a cloud in the meantime. However, you all have more experience at this than I - I trust you can find a workable definition. Karanacs (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Lightbreather

There are behaviors that need examination - as amendments to the Gun control and GGTF ArbComs. Edits that Karanacs gave, and that I give below, are mostly within the focus/locus of those cases. Please add the following as involved parties. --Lightbreather (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

1. EChastain

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

2. Eric Corbett

3. Faceless Enemy - February 2015 SPI No action. Editing history is inconsistent, and he's focused on gun control since his return to active editing in January. Twelve days after Gun show loophole was nominated for GA, he proposed merging Universal background check into it - though the same proposal had been discussed recently. At National Rifle Association, he engaged in warring (with me) over its Finances section. Nutshell: Four pro-gun editors were topic banned from gun-control at ArbCom last year. All engaged in battleground conduct and one was known to sock. Arbitrator analysis is warranted. --Lightbreather (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

4. Godsy - First edit was 2 Dec 2014, but they're obviously not a WP newbie. Early April, without working on any other gun-control related articles, they started editing Nazi gun control theory... which was born of the gun control ArbCom. He has been edit warring over it. (See "Nutshell" above.) --Lightbreather (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

5. Hell in a Bucket: WP:BATTLEGROUND, (WP:PA, WP:BAITING) WP:INCIVILITY, (gravedancing) WP:FORUM, (WP:ASPERSIONS) WP:PNB, WP:ARBPOL. Presents himself and others as "defenders of the wiki." The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

6. Scalhotrod I was not involved in the Gun control or the GGTF ArbComs. In fact, my only direct connection was the ArbCom Enforcement about Gun Control that LB brought against me.... 19:15, 30 April 2015

Gun control

GGTF

30 Apr 2015 Advised Faceless Enemy, upon advice of Karanacs, that he was going to "speak up right away" and ask to excuse himself from this RFAR.

7. Sitush

8. Sue Rangell

Questions/replies to arbitrators

Euryalus Lodged in anger and haste would be closer to my meaning, but I am going to bed soon. Lightbreather (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Knowledgekid87

It is going to be very interesting what comes out of this case, LB already has I-bans in place. What I am getting at is why bring this here rather than just blocking her indef? The reason I can see is that Karanacs is involved here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

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

Lightbreather: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/1/0/2>-Preliminary_decision-2015-04-30T04:10:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • @Lightbreather: a quick clarification - your statement argues that Karanacs is an "involved admin" - but lodging a case request is not an admin action, so alleged "involvement" isn't that relevant. Are you in fact suggesting the request should be declined because it is lodged in bad faith? This isn't intended as a semantic question - it will help in considering the context of the presented material. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)"> ">
  • Accept Yunshui 水 14:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Awaiting more statements before deciding. That said, I think it would be inappropriate to hold a case with Lightbreather as the sole party; her behavior cannot be examined without examining the behavior of others. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    @Karanacs: It seems one-sided to object to bringing in more parties by claiming that Lightbreather's "series of Ibans, combined with other behavior, shows a pattern of misbehavior" when other parties involved with the disruption relating to Lightbreather also have multiple sanctions and "other behavior" that could constitute a "pattern of misbehavior". I also would like to avoid an overly broad case if this is accepted, but I think limiting it to Lightbreather would swing too far in the other direction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Awaiting statements. I am leaning in the direction of a decline here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept. It's clear to me that Lightbreather's behaviour needs to be examined as a whole, as the piecemeal way that it's happened so far has not resolved matters. I'm not sure at the moment exactly who should be on the list of parties, but those who have an iban with Lightbreather who wish to participate should be considered parties without necessarily dragging in those who don't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline as framed, with no prejudice to reframing the case, or a future filing. I'm not sure it is the right time for a case that is purely about LightBreather - the recent two interaction bans could be given a chance to improve the situation. I'm honestly not sure they will, and a comprehensive case looking at LB and interactions with other editors may well be needed nowish; but not a case on LB in a vacuum now, though it may well be necessary in a while. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept This seems inevitable. Considering the number of problems, it appears that interaction bans by themselves do not prevent further disruption in dealing with this editor, & I see no basis for predicting that the current ones will do better. We would do well to deal with it now, before yet greater animosities accumulate. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept case as framed. Of course, the conduct of other editors in relation to Lightbreather will have to be examined as well, to determine whether she was the target of harassment, as she alleges. Other than that, I don't see a reason to extend the scope of the case to the overall conduct of the editors mentioned by Lightbreather. Salvio 17:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept Like DGG, I think this was going to happen sooner or later, in which case the sooner the better. I also agree with Salvio. This should not be about the general conduct of any other editors, but whether or not they were harassing her. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept LFaraone 20:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept -- Euryalus (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept and agreed with Salvio. There's no other way this is getting resolved. Seraphimblade 03:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Accept This is consuming too much community/DR time and needs resolution.  Roger Davies 03:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision (none yet)

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Principles

Findings of fact

Remedies

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

Enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

Category:
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather: Difference between revisions Add topic