This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Scalhotrod (talk | contribs) at 19:15, 30 April 2015 (→Statement by {Non-party}: request to be excused). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Lightbreather

Initiated by Karanacs (talk) at 21:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Karanacs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Lightbreather

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• 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.

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.

Statement by Lightbreather

Wow. Well, I will prepare a response, but first question is, am I allowed to mention editors here whom I am currently banned from making reference to or commenting on? Lightbreather (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs is an involved admin

I believe that Karanacs is an involved admin when it comes to me and I ask: Is this case a bit rash?

On the (meta) Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject Women talk page:

• 19:14, 14 January 2015 Karanacs voted "Strong Oppose" of my proposal for a women-only space. Edit summary: this makes me sad.
• 19:27, 14 January 2015 She added: Another potential con: that this project's very existence will encourage bias on WP, similar to the reasons why caroledcmoore was banned. (emphasis mine - and comparing me/my proposal with banned ed)
• 19:36, 23 January 2015 More questioning of the proposal's value. (Not that questions are bad; this is about whether or not Karanacs is involved where it concerns me. Also, I think my reply is worth noting.)

On Misplaced Pages:

• 15:31, 26 Jan 2015 on the WikiProject Editor Retention talk page, Karanacs accused me of asking a "provocative" question, and therefore of baiting "Eric and others."

• My "provocative" question? I see some encouraging observations above, but I have an observation myself. Or a question, how many women have been involved in these discussions?

• 21:42, 10 Feb 2015 on Eric Corbett's talk-page discussion: Apparently you need to be kept in line by Lightbreather She wrote I'm another of those women who has been successful here and is thus not "normal". (suggesting that I think women who are successful on WP are abnormal)
• 11 Feb 2015 on his talk page, asks him for a peer review of her article Texas Revolution: My very non-girly topic is ready for uninvolved eyes, if you're interested in taking a look.
• 15:15, 12 February 2015 Karanacs created RfD for Kaffeeklatsch.
• 16:12, 12 February 2015 Accused me of canvassing to the RfD discussion.
• 16:26, 12 February 2015 Accused me of canvassing again and threatened to take me to ANI.
• 22:47, 13 February 2015 I was accused of wikilawyering after I was again accused of canvassing and asked for specifics. (As an important aside, I was basically told at the end of that discussion that I was no longer welcome... at the Editor Retention project.)
• 15:41, 18 February 2015 In a talk-page discussion at GGTF, she said (part of a longer comment in which I was pinged): You and others who share your POV, taken collectively, seem to be operating on more of a battleground mentality. (another reference to "militant" women editors?)
• 15:17, 19 February 2015 In another GGTF talk-page discussion in which I was a participant she wrote: I just don't agree with some of the approaches being advocated by members of this project, and I don't necessarily buy into some of the proposed goals. There are already females already on this project who aren't coming to this page and/or don't want to hear anything about the gender gap because they are offended by the militant feminism. (emphasis mine - and another comparison to CMDC?)
• 05:42, 20 February 2015 Later in the same discussion (partial): Any suggestion I've seen that men be barred (or remove themselves) wholesale from certain discussions has been controversial, has escalated or distracted, and has caused more suspicion of this project. I think those suggestions need to stop because they are causing more harm than good at this point.... (she considers my proposed women's space - and arguably me - harmful to WP)
• 20:55, 20 February 2015 Accused me of a personal attack after an editor whom I'd previously asked, more than once, to leave me alone and stay away from my page came back again to give me uninvited "advice."
• 18:29, 27 February 2015 She blocked me for canvassing. (In the notice discussion it was suggested by another editor that she was involved and should have let someone else deal with it.)
• 18:55, 27 Feb 2015 on EC's talk-page discussion: February 2015 I agree . I have used that same term and no one blinked. militant feminism is a political viewpoint; it is, IMO just like, in the US, calling someone left-wing or right-wing. I guess we should all add that to our "do not say" list. SMH. (edit summary Sigh)

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Amendments

After sleeping on this and reviewing WP:A/G and WP:AC/P, I agree that there are behaviors here that need to be examined - as amendments to the Gun control and GGTF ArbComs. The behaviors and disputes that Karanacs and I have given evidence of are mostly within the focus/locus of those cases.

Whether this proceeds as a unique case or placed under the existing ArbComs, I ask that the following editors also be added as involved parties:

1. EChastain
2. Eric Corbett
3. Faceless Enemy
4. Godsy
5. Hell in a Bucket
6. Scalhotrod
7. Sitush
8. Sue Rangell

I will provide evidence for each next.

QUESTION for ARBITRATORS and CLERKS: Is it OK for those of us who are i-banned from each other to refer to each other within the confines of this request? --Lightbreather (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Replies to arbitrators

@Euryalus: Lodged in anger and haste would be closer to my meaning, but I am going to bed soon. I have started reading the "may be of use" articles that are at the end of the arbitration notice that was put on my talk page. (FWIW: I think people named as involved parties in a case should be given those links earlier in a notice and as "you should read" items!) I will read more tomorrow and then decide what I want to do next. Lightbreather (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

If I may a suggestion, this my indeed be in violation of my Iban and feel free to block away or remove if it is. If allowed to participate may I suggest zero interaction between them and only posting of evidence with restrictions from the talkpages for all bans. I actually have enjoyed the quiet of the interaction ban and while I would like to provide evidence it reduces the drama if replies are not allowed and same stuff outside of the request/evidence phase alone should be allowed. It should make the waters clearer and calmer while allowing evidence to be provided. I refrain from comment to the merits of the case request as I believe it would be a gross violation to do so at this point without clarification. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

Having gone through it myself, I'm not keen on seeing an editor taken to Arbitration. Perhaps the IBANS will suffice. PS- Misplaced Pages would be better served if we all view editors as neutral gender. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ched

Without a doubt, this case needs to see the light of day. If this Arbcom truly is about finding what is best for en.wiki, then you damn well need to view this. — Ched :  ?  02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Euryalus: if the committee feels that the person that's bringing the case has no grounds, then I offer to bring it. — Ched :  ?  04:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo

I've watched this brew for almost a year now. And in that time Lightbreather has been a regular locus of discord and drama beyond any other user I can think of. The case needs to be seen. After I saw this I've started collecting diffs and can provide them here in a day or two, or if it becomes clear the case will be accepted, in evidence instead. Capeo (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• To elaborate a bit on Carrite's comment: Lightbreather presented evidence in the GGTF case, "retired", socked to try to affect the outcome, got caught and wrongfully accused the user who brought her to SPI of outing, went on a major sock witch hunt using the same methods of ip geolocation she claimed the day before constituted outing, was unsuccessful in her SPIs, came off a far too short block, and then "unretired". Capeo (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

This individual "retired" right ahead of the Gender Gap Task Force Case and "unretired" right after the close, thereby neatly escaping scrutiny. It might be time. Carrite (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Scalhotrod, request to be excused

Given the requests for amendment that LB made, I am asking to be excused from this proceeding and not be named as a party. I was not involved in the Gun control or the GGTF ArbComs. In fact, my only direct connection was the ArbCom Enforcement about Gun Control that LB brought against me which resulted in a 6 month Topic Ban for both of us. Thank you, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

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 case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Lightbreather: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/0/1>-Lightbreather-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)