Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:20, 11 May 2015

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
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 ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk 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.

Case management

Lightbreather's case

Because of the unusual number of participants with i-bans in this case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

 Roger Davies 10:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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:

1. 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
2. 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)

Yes, thank you. And I am proceeding with my evidence with this in mind. Lightbreather (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

1. ^ 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?

• Example 1: Jan 2015 - Editor Retention
• Battleground over gender

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)

Clerk request

@L235 and Liz: LB has presented information on the evidence page that is woefully misrepresented. The entry is this...

• Asked for exclusion from GGTF ArbCom.

This is not what was requested, nor is it the full story of what transpired, and I ask that it be deleted or that they be instructed to correct it. The following notes and difs show that in the previous instance of its use, it was deleted by one of the Arbitrators.

Details

The original request here was in regard to evidence that LB posted in an ArbCom proceeding. The actual text presented was this...

• Eric Corbett replied: easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. Baiting at least. Others agreed that it was a personal attack.
• Scalhotrod replies to Eric's comment: "Brilliantly put!"

This was a grossly misstated version of what was actually stated. Which was, quoting another User, "'Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me.' - Brilliantly put!!!"

I brought this situation up a second time here. In this instance Clerk Penwhale replied, but it was Arbitrator Salvio that took action stating, "However, I agree that, in context, that statement is misleading; I have therefore removed it without prejudice against it being reintroduced, if rephrased in a way which makes it clear what happened and what statement Scal was actually agreeing with." Salvio then removed the statement here with the Edit summary, "that's misleading, please rephrase if you wish to add it back".

Now it is being submitted again, in just as misleading of a manner albeit with a different presentation. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll pose the question on the clerks list. Liz 18:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, I haven't had any definite word back but rest assured that arbitrators are checking into this case as it progresses. Liz 02:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod says that he didn't catch the "cunt" part of Eric's comment that he replied "brilliant" to, but I think that's implausible. Why? Because of the placement of the sentence from Eric's comment that Scalhotrod copied to his reply.

The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. To give you just one example, it's my opinion that one of the most incivil people on WP is Jimbo Wales, and very few would have the balls to block him. Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me. Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. Eric Corbett 20:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me." - Brilliantly put!!! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I might buy it if the "Added to which" sentence was at the beginning of Eric's comment, but it immediately precedes the "cunt" remark. And Scalhotrod didn't simply reply, "Brilliantly put!" He copied and pasted Eric's sentence into his reply. Scalhotrod has been uncivil with me too many times for me to AGF about this. Lightbreather (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

WTF? He actually quoted the words he thought were "brilliantly put", and the quote doesn't include the c-word comment. I have difficulty knowing which is more bizarre: your original representation of Scalhotrod's comment or your last post defending that representation. Black is white. DeCausa (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It is evident from the actual diff that what Scalhotrod thought was "brilliantly put" was the sentence beginning "Added to which..." There is no evidence that he also considered any other sentence in the preceding post to also be "brilliantly put." I think it unnecessary to forcibly amend the /Evidence, but really the facts of this specific claim and counterclaim are very clear. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Note to Lightbreather

@Lightbreather: you might want to check your diffs. None of the ones in the text below link to the quotes you gave. I have not looked at others, I just clicked one and found it was wrong and searched until I found the first right one going forward and backward so you might want to check the others as well.

ES: I hurt my arm, so no one else must edit while I'm uncomfortable...

They are appalling examples of bad writing, but thank you for pointing to numerous examples of where I corrected horrific.... has personally made over 350 edits to the article with the explanation behind much of it that its for the sake of "balance" and "weight", but I don't buy it when....

... after you started a "crusade" to add it....

Jbh 20:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'll check. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

above is in the edit summary.

you have to scroll down.

will fix...  Done

you have to scroll down.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Sectioned discussion is now in effect on this page

With the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather's section

If it fully intends to give me a fair hearing, I respectfully request that the committee allow me to present evidence against those with whom I have ibans, in addition to those with whom I do not.

1. The central argument in the lead of Karanacs' preliminary statement was that my ibans, and those that I have asked for or that others have suggested, are evidence of what she calls my "battleground" attitude.

2. Diffs and this link (in the form of a diff) were given in reference to those IBANS - in the lead of Karanac's preliminary statement.

Now, I have been told: "while the Committee allows editors some leeway to respond to statements about them on the evidence and workshop case pages, they may not participate in the case except to respond with statements about allegations that have been made about them and may not make direct communication," and "Editors with interaction bans who fail to comply with the letter or spirit of this very limited exemption will be treated as though they breached the interaction ban."

In effect, my ibans were presented as allegations of misconduct in Karanacs' preliminary statement on the main case page, and I cannot present a proper defense of my behavior by responding only to Karanacs cherry-picked evidence on the evidence page. Nor can I expect a proper hearing if those with whom I have ibans are not added to the case as involved parties so that I (and they) have the opportunity to discuss incidents relevant to the case.

The only places I have referred to my fellow i-banned editors since this case was opened was here on these case pages, and in the user-space in which I am preparing my evidence. (I did slip up here, but I immediately corrected myself when I realized what I'd done. Considering their behavior with me, and with an arbitrator - threatening to quit if they were i-banned - I still cannot believe that I received a 1-way from them.)

Meanwhile, two editors with whom I share ibans have referred to me multiple times outside these case pages.

I am removing the evidence I have presented against my fellow ibanned editors until I hear further from you.

As the lone "defendant" in this case, please allow me to present evidence against my fellow ibanned editors in my defense against allegations of "battleground" behavior. At least one editor - and one with whom I have had disputes - agrees that this is fair. Lightbreather (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

{u|Lightbreather}} A message will be posted on your talk page by the clerks shortly formally notifying you about [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence&curid=46592752&diff=661823355&oldid=661796877

procedural changes]. This formalises advise you have already received.

I've moved all the case request statements onto the /Evidence page. This now contains all the evidence against. Per your request for increased evidence lengths, you may go up to 2000 words and 200 diffs for all evidence posted up until this diff of oldid=661386042 10:55, 8 May 2015 UTC. To rebut evidence posted after 10:55, 8 May 2015 UTC, if you need to exceed the evidence length, you may request an extension on a user by user basis: requests are unlikely to be given for rebuttals that exceed the length of the evidence they respond to.  Roger Davies 12:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

L235, Liz: Is the committee aware of this request? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I have made a note on clerks-l. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I've removed as much as I can. It's down to 1463 words now - including headers, diffs, and signatures. I have been unable to present most of the evidence that I have showing why Scalhotrod, Hell in a Bucket, Eric Corbett, Sitush, and EChastain should be added as involved parties. Please do not ask me to cut more. Lightbreather (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: That's my understanding. And Karanacs can bring up any one and any evidence she wants, but I can't mention editors whom I have ibans with... except in response to evidence presented by others. Do I have that right? Lightbreather (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Faceless Enemy: Wow. Wifione had almost 5000 words and Nightscream 1700. Lightbreather (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

 Clerk note: I'm sorry, it's really not my call. Your request has been brought up on the clerks' mailing list but has not been approved by an arbitrator yet. I don't really know what else to say. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

This is being discussed. Real life and a desire to get it right have made a delay, but we hope to answer this shortly. Dougweller (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller, in thinking about this "words" problem a question occurred to me: Am I required or expected to reply/rebut to every piece of evidence that Karanacs provided? Naturally, I disagree with her assessment of my behavior, with the exception that I've been a bit testy this past month, though I do hope the committee will remember that I was out of town to visit a sick (kidney failure) friend and broke my elbow while I was away. A few editors have told me these things are irrelevant to my editing (and the elbow injury probably wimpy, too), though I consider them to be extenuating circumstances.

What I'm asking is, would not replying/rebutting to all of Karanacs allegations/diffs be seen as evidence that I agree with her? If not, then I can almost certainly get my word-count down as I can focus on what I see as the back of the dispute. And I would still like permission to mention/provide evidence, here on case pages, about ibanned editors to make my case.

Also, as a heads up, I'm taking a vacation from Misplaced Pages this Sunday. Lightbreather (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: We're discussing the issue of ibanned editors, but you'll have to wait until tomorrow for a reply. And for the new issue above and below of course. Dougweller (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Request to arbitrators: There is speculation on Karanacs talk page that the Systers-Misplaced Pages mailing list might be used to discuss this case and to canvass. In order to dispel this allegationsuggestion, I invited Karanacs to join the list, but she declined. I am now asking for a woman arbitrator and clerk to join the list - at least for the duration of the case - to see that the list has not been used nor will be used to discuss the case. Lightbreather (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not the role of Arbitrators or clerks to monitor or validate the contents of external mailing lists, so thank you for the suggestion but no. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI: I have started an SPI against Gaijin42/Godsy. And anticipating the question, yes, I've notified them. Lightbreather (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitely responding on the iban issue tomorrow . As for your question above about not replying to everything, that's basically your choice. Obviously not replying to an allegation won't mean we assume that the allegation was correct, any more than replying will make us assume it was wrong. Focus on the things you think are most important. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

A member of this committee has closed the SPI that I opened, commenting that the evidence was "vastly insufficient to support a sockpuppetry claim." Part of the reason that I presented my evidence there is that I thought it quite convincing. I respectfully ask the whole committee to consider the evidence, rather than have the decision made by one arbitrator, whose answer at SPI indicates that they have already made up their mind about me. Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather I'm afraid the committee does not ordinarily review SPI cases.  Roger Davies 12:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Mildly, it is possible to disagree with someone on one issue without disagreeing with them on everything. In this instance your SPI evidence was significantly below the standard required for a genuine SPI. Closing it along those lines does not suggest anything about my views on any other matter you raise. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs section

Out of curiosity, did Lightbreather's evidence limit get relaxed? It's currently at 2600 words. Karanacs (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I don't object to her being given more space (I think some of her evidence is doing a fine job of proving a battleground mentality), but I do think there ought to be a defined limit, whatever that may be. Karanacs (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Capeo, would something like this work? To get this diff I selected the first edit I made and the last one I made in a sequence. It shows the cumulative changes and tell me that there was 1 intermediate revision. Karanacs (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ca2james' section

Lightbreather (and anyone else who refers to me via pronouns), I don't specify my gender on Misplaced Pages. Therefore, I'd appreciate it if I could be referred to as a "they" (or "xe" or "xie") instead of as a "he". Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket

I want to clarify a few bits of confusion. Yesterday Dougweller left a warning about those with IBans and what can and can't be said by each party. I have to note though that there is massive confusion on what the scope of this case is. Who is the parties? What behaviors or incidents is the committee wanting to investigate? It's hardly fair to arbitrate something when the processes for all involved are so muddy. I would appreciate to clarify if someone makes it clear to everyone what the scope of the case is and the finer details. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Faceless Enemy's section

I agree with Lightbreather that she should get additional words to respond. I request that the committee review earlier single-editor cases and see what the increased word limit was for them. Looking at the archives, it appears that Wifione and Nightscream both got additional words. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: 5000 is probably overkill. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that EChastain was just blocked as a sock of Mattisse, who has apparently been a problem for a long time. Ping Lightbreather. Faceless Enemy (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: I don't think anyone here suspects you of being a sock. Or a puppet master. Or whatever. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87's section

I just wanted to say I agree with HIB, what is this case about? Are the two parties involved just LB and Karanacs? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Im not sure if this changes anything but EChastain was blocked for being a sock account. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Capeo's section

@L235 and Liz: I was wondering if there's a precedent for presenting patterns of editing behavior in evidence that would go far beyond what difs could convey due to sheer volume? More specifically, it's my contention that LB has edited in a retaliatory or, in the least, pointy manner when her attempts at sanctions don't work. For instance, after attempts to have Scalhotrod sanctioned were unsuccessful she proceeded to make hundreds of edits in porn related articles and it became her main editing focus. After multiple ANIs and posts in other venues about civility she turned her editing focus to civility related policies and proceeded with a huge volume of edits again. And there are other examples. Clearly no single diff would illustrate this pattern. In fact the individual edits are mainly non-problematic until it eventually leads to another conflict. I know we aren't supposed to present links to contribution pages as evidence and I know anything presented in evidence requires a diff so I was wondering if there was an acceptable way to illustrate a large volume of edits in evidence. Capeo (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

What alternative do you have in mind? In order to present your request to the arbitrators, we need to know what exactly you are asking to do. Liz 17:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's the issue, I don't know. Outside of just linking to LB's contribution page I know of know other way to display a large amount of edits representing a pattern. I was hoping this may have come up in prior ArbCom cases. If there had to be a specific request I guess it would have to be an exemption to not linking to contribution pages as evidence. I doubt that will be granted but it's the only thing I can think of. I'd like to get my evidence up today so I'll proceed with the assumption that it won't be granted and if it turns out it is after I've presented evidence I'll simply add those couple of diffs. Capeo (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Karanacs Actually that may just work. Thank you. Capeo (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin42's Section

In light of the SPI filed against me, I guess whatever detente LB and I had achieved was illusory. Again for the record I am not Godus, nor to my knowledge have the two of us ever interacted in any way on or off wiki. As explination of the change in my editing patterns described by LB I have two notes : 1) I got a new job in late Feb. My previous job I was able to edit quite a bit during work hours (8-5 CST) but my new job I cannot. 2) The most recent area of heavy editing for me, Shooting of Michael Brown largely wrapped up due to the resolution of the case in the real world. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)