Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Lightbreather Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:15, 6 May 2015 view sourceCapeo (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users1,263 edits →Request for extra words and diffs: cmt← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:59, 6 May 2015 view source Doug Weller (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators263,962 edits →Request for extra words and diffs: in general, the diffs mentioned in the opening statement are considered part of the case and may be relied upon by arbitrators when drafting the proposed decision; therefore, there is no need to repeat themNext edit →
Line 124:		Line 124:

	:::And it's precisely the pushing of your POVs that has caused this near-endless conflict. That and the assumption that anyone's reaction to your POV is inherent disagreement with your POV as opposed to disagreement with your presentation and framing of it. ] (]) 04:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)		:::And it's precisely the pushing of your POVs that has caused this near-endless conflict. That and the assumption that anyone's reaction to your POV is inherent disagreement with your POV as opposed to disagreement with your presentation and framing of it. ] (]) 04:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

			], I'm not sure if you saw Salvio's response to Karanacs: " in general, the diffs mentioned in the opening statement are considered part of the case and may be relied upon by arbitrators when drafting the proposed decision; therefore, there is no need to repeat them on the evidence page." ] (]) 17:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

	{{reflist\|talk}}		{{reflist\|talk}}

Revision as of 17:59, 6 May 2015

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration

About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)

Track related changes
v t e

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

Comment on real life concerns

As one of the editors who has experienced not inconsiderable real life concerns as a result of the unfortunate remark of July 2014, and especially as a result of the ensuing community dialogue that "if it is too impolite for women here, why don't you just leave!" I shall be interested to monitor the outcome of this case. Many individuals like me who are active in the offline world of Misplaced Pages and open culture can not participate in site administration, movement leadership, or governance as a result of such concerns. That said, we should be clear that it is the remit of the Wikimedia Board, and not of Arbcom, to determine whether the US based non-profit funding this site intends to uphold the standards of a non-hostile working environment as defined in US law. Absent such guidance from the Board, we must assume that Arbcom may set social norms for the site as it sees fit. --Djembayz (talk)

This has zero to do with the events of last July, they have to do with the behaviors of editors since that time. Hostile environments are created everyday and you'd be mistaken to think that polite words and flowers can't make a hostile environment just as easily as adult language. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that there is more than one way to create a hostile environment. I'd like to point out that although your opinion is that the events of last July (which resulted in lengthy and acrimonious discussions between proponents and opponents of the use of vulgar sexual terms when interacting with other volunteers) are not relevant to the matter at hand, those events are the situation that is referred to in the opening statement by the person who filed the case, as being a source of the "battleground mentality". One additional thing to consider in this regard: it appears in this case that we may be looking at a change in direction, in which requesting interaction bans is no longer considered an appropriate way to deal with editors who one finds inappropriately vulgar/sexual-- which may exclude some of our less aggressive editors, especially female editors, from participation in specific topic areas. --Djembayz (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Djembayz and I have discussed this issue previously, including a time when we met IRL- I will preface my comments by saying that have a lot of respect for Djembayz and the work she does both IRL and on WP. And I agree that she is RIGHT about real world laws and the ability of professionals to contribute to a crowdsourced project that, for them may have real world implications. She may be onto something in that arbcom needs to be looking at ways to deescalate drama so that less aggressive/less assertive editors (who often create great content) are not run off by trolls. Montanabw 01:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

But on Lightbreather as an individual, I have a respectful difference of opinion. I do not wish to align myself with individuals who I have seen behave in sexist and misogynistic ways, but there is a dividing line between when an editor who happens to be female (or at least claims to be) is actually subjected to a "hostile work environment" versus being on the receiving end of natural consequences for her inappropriate behavior. In this instance, I have to say that a lot of the problems Lightbreather has encountered are self-inflicted and her playing the woman card is not helping either women on wikipedia (of whom I am one), or real life woman professionals who may help contribute content, or Lightbreather's own case. The truth is, LB does appear to spend more time on drama than on creating quality content and someone needs to turn off the lightbulb so that all the moths cease being drawn to it. If LB found people's attacks inappropriate, ANI was the solution, not trolling a user's talk page and baiting him, knowing he is subject to restrictions that limit his ability to respond. The focus does need to be on LB. Montanabw 01:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing at GTTF

This one has run its course, Roger Davies 18:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I noticed the canvassing at GTTF before I saw Black Kite's evidence. I removed the section in question, as I thought that was extremely inappropriate, since this case is not framed as one around GTTF. Certainly, if someone were to open a case against me, I would not expect to see notifications at WikiProject Texas A&M or at WP:FAC. Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC) The canvassing has been restored by GRuban. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC) Hi Karanacs and Black Kite, I'm sorry you saw that as canvassing. It seemed reasonable to inform people interested in how women fare on WP, particularly during dispute resolution (a major issue when it comes to the gender gap), that something related to those issues is happening. Editors who watchlist GGTF support it to varying degrees, including not at all. There's no expectation that the notice will be seen only or mostly by people supportive of LB. Sarah (SV) 19:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC) As (sorta-kinda) active in GGTF, I found the notice informative and relevant. That the task force is mentioned so many times here seem reason enough to inform about it. Peter 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC) (ec) To my knowledge, it is NOT common to post notices about Arb cases to WikiProjects at which someone is a member (no matter how many times an editor invokes the name of the WP in his/her initial case statement; one can say whatever one wishes in the statement that may or may not have any bearing on the case). I think the notice was completely inappropriate, unless someone was posting notices about every single Arb case that involved a female (and that, I think, would be in poor taste). Perhaps the notice would be appropriate after the case were decided, but not during the evidence phase. Karanacs (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC) GGTF isn't exactly your average task force and I believe there might be room for interpretation. Now, I'm definitely not versed in the complexities of ArbCom etiquette, but I'm not seeing any indication that either the letter or spirit of any rules have been breeched. But what do I know? Peter 20:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC) I really don't think Sarah's "canvassing" has any potential for doing harm to the process, or skewing anything. Black Kite compared it to alerting particular groups for an AfD, but it's not really the same. AfD is for establishing consensus, and while it's not supposed to be a simple head-count, it often is. The purpose of the arbitration evidence page is quite different. If an alert at GGTF should bring in, say, irrelevant criticism of other users, or opinion pieces in the garb of evidence, as I suppose is the subtext of the critics here, the arbs will (one would hope) disregard such contributions. Also Sarah makes a good point that GGTF members support the project, and a fortiori support LB, to varying degrees. Very varying. Bishonen \| talk 20:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC). (Note this is solely my own opinion, not on behalf of the Committee.) I believe Bishonen is essentially correct. In an arbitration case, the same people will be deciding the final outcome, no matter else who comes across the case. In an AfD or the like, while numeric counts are not the sole factor to the final outcome, they are not utterly ignored by the closer either, so in that case, canvassing is likely to cause a skewed result that doesn't actually reflect the consensus of the wider community. In an arbitration case, anyone who can present relevant and useful evidence is welcome to, while anyone who presents irrelevant or redundant junk just gets it ignored. The more relevant material gets presented, the better of a decision we can craft. So while it shouldn't be taken to the extreme of spamming, I generally don't see an issue with notifying people who might be interested in presenting such evidence that a case is underway. I would make the minor clarification that this is not a case against Lightbreather, but rather a case involving Lightbreather. In this case, like any, the behavior of all involved is subject to review. Seraphimblade 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC) "people interested in how women fare on WP" and suddenly this ArbCom case is a women vs. men battleground (in addition to the earlier Interactions at GGTF) with Lightbreather being for the noble cause of women and those who present evidence against her being forces of the male supremacy prevalent in Misplaced Pages trying to put down women. Really SlimVirgin, perhaps the radical feminist approach to everything isn't very constructive in a collaborative project like this. --Pudeo ' 03:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Please do not anticipate problems before they appear. If a battleground environment starts to emerge, the arbitrators and clerks will address it then. Liz 12:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Sorry but since when does informing a wikiproject in which an editor has been involved with amount to a "radical feminist approach"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Several people posting on this page seem to misunderstand this case as "Interactions at GGTF 2". DeCausa (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Nobody misunderstands, the tactic is transparent. Eric Corbett 17:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Look at it this way, you aren't involved as much this time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This one has run its course, Roger Davies 18:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I noticed the canvassing at GTTF before I saw Black Kite's evidence. I removed the section in question, as I thought that was extremely inappropriate, since this case is not framed as one around GTTF. Certainly, if someone were to open a case against me, I would not expect to see notifications at WikiProject Texas A&M or at WP:FAC. Karanacs (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The canvassing has been restored by GRuban. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Karanacs and Black Kite, I'm sorry you saw that as canvassing. It seemed reasonable to inform people interested in how women fare on WP, particularly during dispute resolution (a major issue when it comes to the gender gap), that something related to those issues is happening.

Editors who watchlist GGTF support it to varying degrees, including not at all. There's no expectation that the notice will be seen only or mostly by people supportive of LB. Sarah (SV) 19:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

As (sorta-kinda) active in GGTF, I found the notice informative and relevant. That the task force is mentioned so many times here seem reason enough to inform about it.

Peter 19:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) To my knowledge, it is NOT common to post notices about Arb cases to WikiProjects at which someone is a member (no matter how many times an editor invokes the name of the WP in his/her initial case statement; one can say whatever one wishes in the statement that may or may not have any bearing on the case). I think the notice was completely inappropriate, unless someone was posting notices about every single Arb case that involved a female (and that, I think, would be in poor taste). Perhaps the notice would be appropriate after the case were decided, but not during the evidence phase. Karanacs (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

GGTF isn't exactly your average task force and I believe there might be room for interpretation. Now, I'm definitely not versed in the complexities of ArbCom etiquette, but I'm not seeing any indication that either the letter or spirit of any rules have been breeched. But what do I know?

Peter 20:13, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think Sarah's "canvassing" has any potential for doing harm to the process, or skewing anything. Black Kite compared it to alerting particular groups for an AfD, but it's not really the same. AfD is for establishing consensus, and while it's not supposed to be a simple head-count, it often is. The purpose of the arbitration evidence page is quite different. If an alert at GGTF should bring in, say, irrelevant criticism of other users, or opinion pieces in the garb of evidence, as I suppose is the subtext of the critics here, the arbs will (one would hope) disregard such contributions. Also Sarah makes a good point that GGTF members support the project, and a fortiori support LB, to varying degrees. Very varying. Bishonen | talk 20:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC).

(Note this is solely my own opinion, not on behalf of the Committee.) I believe Bishonen is essentially correct. In an arbitration case, the same people will be deciding the final outcome, no matter else who comes across the case. In an AfD or the like, while numeric counts are not the sole factor to the final outcome, they are not utterly ignored by the closer either, so in that case, canvassing is likely to cause a skewed result that doesn't actually reflect the consensus of the wider community. In an arbitration case, anyone who can present relevant and useful evidence is welcome to, while anyone who presents irrelevant or redundant junk just gets it ignored. The more relevant material gets presented, the better of a decision we can craft. So while it shouldn't be taken to the extreme of spamming, I generally don't see an issue with notifying people who might be interested in presenting such evidence that a case is underway. I would make the minor clarification that this is not a case against Lightbreather, but rather a case involving Lightbreather. In this case, like any, the behavior of all involved is subject to review. Seraphimblade 21:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"people interested in how women fare on WP" and suddenly this ArbCom case is a women vs. men battleground (in addition to the earlier Interactions at GGTF) with Lightbreather being for the noble cause of women and those who present evidence against her being forces of the male supremacy prevalent in Misplaced Pages trying to put down women. Really SlimVirgin, perhaps the radical feminist approach to everything isn't very constructive in a collaborative project like this. --Pudeo ' 03:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please do not anticipate problems before they appear. If a battleground environment starts to emerge, the arbitrators and clerks will address it then. Liz 12:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but since when does informing a wikiproject in which an editor has been involved with amount to a "radical feminist approach"? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Several people posting on this page seem to misunderstand this case as "Interactions at GGTF 2". DeCausa (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Nobody misunderstands, the tactic is transparent. Eric Corbett 17:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Look at it this way, you aren't involved as much this time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about case request vs evidence

I presented some diffs in my request to open the case. Do I need to copy them to my evidence section to make sure they stay front and center, or is that a waste of limited text? Thanks, Karanacs (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This is an excellent question. In addition to herself and the seven editors Karanacs has named in her opening statement and evidence, there are three others for whom I would like to provide evidence of long-term harassment, tag-teaming, gun-control and GGTF DS violations, and socking (that contributes to these problems). Lightbreather (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that including a further ten people would be helpful so my vote would be "no". While mentioning others might sometimes be useful for context, it is primarily your conduct that is being examined. Roger Davies 18:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I've posed the questions on the clerks email list and hopefully we'll get some word about these questions today. Liz 17:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs, in general, the diffs mentioned in the opening statement are considered part of the case and may be relied upon by arbitrators when drafting the proposed decision; therefore, there is no need to repeat them on the evidence page. Salvio 19:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Battleground at User talk:Karanacs

Unproductive. Will everyone go and do something else please? Roger Davies 18:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There have been numerous discussions/notices on Karanacs talk page since she announced at 18:51, 28 April 2015 on Sitush's talk page - iBan: You and Lightbreather - that she was going to start a case against me: 20:52, 28 April 2015 discussion fyi by EChastain 22:39, 28 April 2015 notice You've got mail by Hell in a Bucket 13:20, 30 April 2015 discussion Elephant in the room by Sitush 18:26, 30 April 2015 discussion LB arbcom by Scalhotrod 18:16, 2 May 2015 discussion wer by EChastain 00:48, 3 May 2015 notice Arbitration case opened by ArbCom clerk 18:45, 3 May 2015 discussion Mail by Scalhotrod 17:56, 4 May 2015 comment by Scal: Maybe I triggered some kind of automated block by using it too many times in a row. 13:58, 4 May 2015 discussion Tip of iceberg? by Sitush 22:22, 4 May 2015 sub-discussion Coming storm by Scalhotrod There has also been a comment by Eric Corbett, which Karanacs deleted with the edit summary "i agree." Look at the May edits on her talk page since I started to compose this discussion: Disregarding individual violations of WP:IBAN, WP:AGF, WP:FORUM, and WP:CANVASS, this adds up to WP:BATTLEGROUND. That which has been discussed since the ArbCom was opened also violates WP:ARBPOL. Certainly Admissibility of evidence, and maybe some other areas, too? I request that the committee add the above-named persons as involved parties. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Please don't forget to include... 4 May 2015 comment in Mail by EChastain, "As I said, I'm very concerned about retaliation...." "... I'm not at all confidence I can do it right and not bring more harassment from LB's helpers." --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)I can personally sympathize with fear of retaliation. I've pretty much lived with it since I started actively editing here in August 2013, as my first talk-page archive shows: . Why, who's that all over my first talk-page archive? Sue Rangell? Imagine that. Not to mention the editor who created my talk page by accusing me of "scrubbing" an article. (My "scrubbing"? I removed three occurrences of a unduely weighted, POV word from an article, leaving one in place in an NPOV, "due" place.) That was my "welcome" to Misplaced Pages editing. That and about a half-dozen other pro-gun editors, with the help of Sue, WP:TAGTEAMing me at the Federal Assault Weapons Ban talk page: . Finally, I've been told (directly and indirectly) numerous times that how I feel is a matter of little importance to most of the WP editors - who happen to be 90% men - so why should we care about EChastain's feelings? For instance, when I presented evidence that you were stalking me and when Eric Corbett called me a cunt, others joined in - mostly men - to tell me how paranoid I was - and oversensitive, too. Lightbreather (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC) I have never called you a cunt, so why do you persist with this lie? Eric Corbett 18:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC) What are you claiming these parties are involved in exactly? Disagreeing with you? Eric Corbett 17:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Was the Elephant in the room thread about you? Sitush didn't say and I honestly had no idea. Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Yes. Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC) How was any Iban violated. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Did you follow the links? Eric was banned from interacting with me on April 29: Interaction ban between yourself and Lightbreather. He wrote this on Karanacs talk page on May 4: LB's evident tactic to take down as many other editors as she can with her... No surprise, I suppose, since he did announce that he was going to ignore the ban. --Lightbreather (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Unproductive. Will everyone go and do something else please? Roger Davies 18:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

There have been numerous discussions/notices on Karanacs talk page since she announced at 18:51, 28 April 2015 on Sitush's talk page - iBan: You and Lightbreather - that she was going to start a case against me:

20:52, 28 April 2015 discussion fyi by EChastain
22:39, 28 April 2015 notice You've got mail by Hell in a Bucket
13:20, 30 April 2015 discussion Elephant in the room by Sitush
18:26, 30 April 2015 discussion LB arbcom by Scalhotrod
18:16, 2 May 2015 discussion wer by EChastain
00:48, 3 May 2015 notice Arbitration case opened by ArbCom clerk
18:45, 3 May 2015 discussion Mail by Scalhotrod
- 17:56, 4 May 2015 comment by Scal: Maybe I triggered some kind of automated block by using it too many times in a row.
13:58, 4 May 2015 discussion Tip of iceberg? by Sitush
- 22:22, 4 May 2015 sub-discussion Coming storm by Scalhotrod

There has also been a comment by Eric Corbett, which Karanacs deleted with the edit summary "i agree."

Look at the May edits on her talk page since I started to compose this discussion:

Disregarding individual violations of WP:IBAN, WP:AGF, WP:FORUM, and WP:CANVASS, this adds up to WP:BATTLEGROUND. That which has been discussed since the ArbCom was opened also violates WP:ARBPOL. Certainly Admissibility of evidence, and maybe some other areas, too?

I request that the committee add the above-named persons as involved parties. Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't forget to include...

4 May 2015 comment in Mail by EChastain, "As I said, I'm very concerned about retaliation...." "... I'm not at all confidence I can do it right and not bring more harassment from LB's helpers." --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can personally sympathize with fear of retaliation. I've pretty much lived with it since I started actively editing here in August 2013, as my first talk-page archive shows: . Why, who's that all over my first talk-page archive? Sue Rangell? Imagine that. Not to mention the editor who created my talk page by accusing me of "scrubbing" an article. (My "scrubbing"? I removed three occurrences of a unduely weighted, POV word from an article, leaving one in place in an NPOV, "due" place.)

That was my "welcome" to Misplaced Pages editing. That and about a half-dozen other pro-gun editors, with the help of Sue, WP:TAGTEAMing me at the Federal Assault Weapons Ban talk page: .

Finally, I've been told (directly and indirectly) numerous times that how I feel is a matter of little importance to most of the WP editors - who happen to be 90% men - so why should we care about EChastain's feelings? For instance, when I presented evidence that you were stalking me and when Eric Corbett called me a cunt, others joined in - mostly men - to tell me how paranoid I was - and oversensitive, too. Lightbreather (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have never called you a cunt, so why do you persist with this lie? Eric Corbett 18:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you claiming these parties are involved in exactly? Disagreeing with you? Eric Corbett 17:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Was the Elephant in the room thread about you? Sitush didn't say and I honestly had no idea. Karanacs (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

How was any Iban violated. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you follow the links? Eric was banned from interacting with me on April 29: Interaction ban between yourself and Lightbreather.

He wrote this on Karanacs talk page on May 4:

LB's evident tactic to take down as many other editors as she can with her...

No surprise, I suppose, since he did announce that he was going to ignore the ban.

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for extra words and diffs

Per WP:AC/P Submission of evidence I request double the default 1000 words and 100 diffs for named parties.

In her preliminary statement on the main case page, Karanacs named seven editors whom have had disputes with me on topics that fall under the focus/locus of the gun-control and GGTF ArbComs. Three - Eric Corbett, Two kinds of pork, and Sitush - were formally involved parties in the GGTF ArbCom and another, Hell in a Bucket, was heavily involved in the case. The others - Sue Rangell, Mike Searson, and Scalhotrod - have been heavily involved in gun-control disputes with me.

As the "defendant" (so to speak) in this case, and someone whom at least a dozen (conservative guess) editors - including some admins - would like to see banned, I feel I have two burdens before me:

To respond to the evidence presented by Karanacs (and presumably others) on the main case page and on the evidence page, and to questions by the arbitrators and others who participate in good faith; and
To persuade the committee to formally add eight other editors as involved parties: EChastain, Eric Corbett, Faceless Enemy, Godsy, Hell in a Bucket, Scalhotrod, Sitush, and Sue Rangell.

If I only address the first task, I fear there will be more disputes in the future. If I concentrate on the second task only, I may be banned on the basis of one-sided evidence.

If evidence presented in my preliminary statement will be considered by the committee, I may not need to use this many words and diffs; otherwise, I will need them.

Respectfully, --Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, currently, you're presenting evidence against one person who was already sanctioned under the Gun Control discretionary sanctions for the behavior you're citing, and another who hasn't edited in around eight months. I don't see a great deal of gain to be had in going over things that are either long stale or already taken care of, so my advice would be to focus on things that are unsettled issues with active editors. Would you need additional evidence space to do that? Seraphimblade 20:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The editors you refer to are two of seven who were named in Karanacs' preliminary statement on the main case page. I included them because the case is being made that I am the problem, but the arbitrators and others who follow the case should know the background for the case presented against me.

The reason that I added those editors first is that I'm going to present evidence against other editors in the order that our interactions began. If allowed to present it, my evidence will show that my behaviors are a symptom of a larger problem on Misplaced Pages that has to do with how new editors are treated and how editors who are in the POV minority are treated.

All editors have POVs that influence their behavior when editing articles and interacting with others. Gun control and gender related subjects (which have both had ArbCom cases in the past year) have significant minority POVs within the editorial body. As a minority POV editor in these areas, I am harassed frequently and have been since August 2013. If I were like many other editors, I might have quit. In fact I did quit, albeit briefly, in October. However, I am a trained writer, and I want to contribute to the project - but in a harassment free environment.

Have I ended up in a number of disputes and at the noticeboards? Yes, because those are the places policy tells us to go to (try to) resolve disputes. Have I accused others of incivility? Yes, because there is a civility policy. Have I sometimes been uncivil myself? Yes, but considering how often I am harassed and how many people talk about me and my proposals in an uncivil, not AGF manner across many forums, I think the number of times I've lost my patience and said less-than-civil things is remarkable - especially in comparison to how often those who berate me sink to such behavior themselves. The double-standard on behavior expectations and enforcement is part of the agonistic editing environment that overshadows project policy.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

And it's precisely the pushing of your POVs that has caused this near-endless conflict. That and the assumption that anyone's reaction to your POV is inherent disagreement with your POV as opposed to disagreement with your presentation and framing of it. Capeo (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather, I'm not sure if you saw Salvio's response to Karanacs: " in general, the diffs mentioned in the opening statement are considered part of the case and may be relied upon by arbitrators when drafting the proposed decision; therefore, there is no need to repeat them on the evidence page." Dougweller (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

^ Lam, S.; Uduwage, A.; Dong, Z.; Sen, S.; Musicant, D.; Terveen, L.; Reidl, J. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Misplaced Pages's Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11. ACM: 9. Our survival analyses in H1a Gap-Exists and H3b F-Reverted-More indicate that females who become contributors stop editing Misplaced Pages sooner than males. Furthermore, both H3b F-Reverted-More and H3d F-Blocked-Less (reversed to F-Blocked-More!) suggest that females encounter more adversity in Misplaced Pages.

Request to Karanacs

Karanacs, would you mind numbering your bullets in these sections of your evidence?

It will help me to conserve words in my reply.

Thanks. --Lightbreather (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Note to Karanacs

@Karanacs: I think you have the wrong diff for Ex. 2 @14:01 it says "Good advice HB and a beer sounds pretty good right about now... :)" and is by Scalhotrod not LB. Jbh 21:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I've replaced that one with the one that should have been there. Karanacs (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)