Revision as of 17:36, 26 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

Purpose of the workshop: The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. 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 unnecessarily 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. Behavior during a case may 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

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Motion to Recuse

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.

I am very disturbed that Salvio giuliano has not recused. He issued a bad block that "not supported by consensus of the oversight-l team". Per Ironholds: Wow; this is a tremendously inappropriate block, regardless of the merits, for Salvio to be making. Salvio: your many comments about Lightbreather over an extremely long period demonstrate that there is no way you are uninvolved enough to make a call here. Salvio has made numerous personal attacks on Lighbreather. I remind the committee the Arbitrators are expected to act with integrity and good faith at all times. I do not expect that Salvio will materially affect the outcome of the case, but the whole purpose of recusal is to maintain the community's trust in the integrity of the Arbitration process. I would therefore ask for the Committee to recuse Salvio. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The committee is currently discussing it, and will issue a ruling on the matter. LFaraone 04:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ironholds:It's not the case that the Oversighters decided the block was incorrect. The feeling was that the block for made for the wrong reason (ie it was felt that the text was not oversightable), not that the block should never have been made, and the decision to unblock immediately was not a decision by the Oversighters. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

What User:Hawkeye7 pointed out is not a personal attacks. Lightbreather was caught lying twice, that's not a personal attack that is facts. I'm perfectly content with Salvio on the case as he is the counterweight to User:Gorilla Warfare. All of those comments deal with administrative actions and purely administrative actions do not make a person involved. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Assuming those of us who are i-banned will be allowed to address and refer to each other in this case's proceedings, I would like to ask: Is the workshop page the place for i-banned people to throw about their opinions about their fellow banned editors? If Hell in a Bucket wants to say such things, shouldn't he go to the evidence page and make a statement there? If this is an acceptable place to do what he did above, I'd like the opportunity to join in. Lightbreather (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I am not familiar with the workings of whatever is going on here, but, based upon the diffs submitted above, Mr. Salvio should recuse himself. Otherwise, he should be excused from service. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This is frankly kind of astonishing, and comes on the back of Lightbreather asking for the same thing (and receiving the message "no" for her troubles). If Salvio were ignorant of this issue, I'd get it, but it was explicitly brought up less than a week ago in relation to his OS block of Lightbreather, and the oversighters decided his block was incorrect. Now, either it's sheer coincidence that a bad call was made around someone everyone except Salvio thought he was too involved to be going near, or it's not. But for safety's sake, opt towards removing the possibility entirely. I can't believe Salvio would be so incredibly vital to a committee with a membership in two digits that they couldn't survive not having him around for one week. Ironholds (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: thanks for the clarification; my point, though, was "Salvio made the wrong call there". That he made the wrong call in evaluating the content is...more of an argument, not less. Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Esquivalience

Proposed principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages and the effect of disruptive editing

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to produce a high-quality, verifiable, and neutral encyclopedia that anyone can use for free, disseminate, or build a derivative work upon, with some restrictions. Disruptive editing can damage or disrupt the project. Such damage or disruption not only damages the Misplaced Pages community, but ultimately, the reader.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Consensus

2) Misplaced Pages is built upon communal consensus. Editors are expected to make a good-faith attempt to establish consensus in disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Canvassing

2.1) Notifying a select group that is expected to support the notifier's preferred outcome skews with consensus, and creates a false illusion of support or opposition.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Ownership of articles

3) Misplaced Pages is edited and improved by the free work of many contributors, not just one. "Ownership" of articles is detrimental to the reader.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Assume good faith

4) Editors must assume good faith. Lack of such an assumption harms the community and deters constructive, or in some cases, even prolific contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point

5) When an editor disagrees over a rule or an application of the rule, then he/she should try to gain consensus, explaining why the rule is being misapplied or why the rule is detrimental to Misplaced Pages. Disrupting Misplaced Pages to convince editors is contrary to the spirit of consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sockpuppetry is a serious accusation

6) When one suspects sockpuppetry, he/she must provide serious evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Accusing an editor of sockpuppetry in bad faith is a very serious personal attack.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Never edit war

7) Edit warring is harmful to Misplaced Pages and individual articles. It is important that, in a content dispute, readers will still read a reasonably stable (i.e. doesn't change, in a manner detrimental to the reader, from day to day) version of an article, and that communal consensus is trying to be established.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing is harmful

8) Tendentious editing (continuing to edit in an objectionable manner despite opposition) is harmful to communal consensus and the goal of building an encyclopedia. It is also considered disruptive editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

No personal attacks

9) Personal attacks are (and should be) taken very seriously, as they deter contributors away (the targets of personal attacks and future editors who see such attacks) and slow down the progression of Misplaced Pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground

10) Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges or cast personal attacks and incivil comments.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Gender is not an excuse

11) Editors, whether male or female, are expected to follow Misplaced Pages policy. Being male or female is, under no circumstances, nor under WP:IAR, an excuse to violate Misplaced Pages policy or cast personal attacks and unsubstantiated accusations on the basis of gender.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Couldn't agree more. Being a male DOES NOT make you a better person, contributor etc and being female does not grant special privileges or exceptions. I think that each editor should be judged by their content not their age, gender or sexual orientations Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Consider all edits

12) All edits, good or disruptive, should be considered in arbitration cases, as discounting good-faith edits amounts to "cherrypicking".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Err not sure still o9n the parties issues but I agree that all edits should be considered. Outside of rare cases there is nobody that only adds bad edits. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

User:Lightbreather/ACK2

1) The page above, does indicate a degree of accountability for Lightbreather's actions, and should not be discounted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This page appears to be where Lightbreather prepared her evidence and its contents appear to be on the Evidence page. Ca2james (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by Mike V

Proposed principles

Off-wiki communication

1) While discussion of Misplaced Pages outside of Misplaced Pages itself is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external communication for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is improper.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I agree coordination should be avoided. I think it is unrealistic to think that people don't talk to their "friend" editors but where is that line and how can it be proved? I think it's a principle that can't be enforced. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand that people may talk to friends about Misplaced Pages and that's where the "unavoidable and generally appropriate" part comes in. However, the crux of this principle is when off-wiki communication occurs that would otherwise be very inappropriate on-wiki. Mike V • Talk 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Off-wiki conduct

2) A user's conduct outside of Misplaced Pages, including participation in websites or mailing lists in which Misplaced Pages or its contributors are discussed, is generally not subject to Misplaced Pages policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I can agree with this finding. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Outing

3) Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an invasion of privacy and is always unacceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Lightbreather

1) Lightbreather engaged in the posting of non-public information off-wiki. The information made available resulted in the harassment of another individual. Lightbreather's actions demonstrated that she was aware of the possible consequences.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It appears that everyone agrees that discussion about this is closed. Any further evidence of either outing or off-wiki harassment needs to be sent privately to the committee, not discussed here. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

During this case I submitted no evidence privately to the committee alone. I did submit evidence to functionaries-en, as noted on the evidence talk page, so I'm assuming that is what Mike V is referring to (since he has CU/OS permission and is therefore a functionaries-en member). The list of evidence was preceded by this simple statement, The following info is all publicly available.

All of the evidence was available via a simple google search, and no membership logins were involved to see it. What Mike V has written here is untrue. Lightbreather (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• @SlimVirgin: Both. And I'd prefer to say no more here, publicly, and would ask the committee to contact me privately about this, and to seriously consider shutting down this public discussion of private evidence. Lightbreather (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Per evidence submitted privately to the Committee. Mike V • Talk 05:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• The issue I have here is that there are issues that are happening on Wiki and off. Most notably the incident in Dec that was targeting an editor and their family that required oversight. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, the outing policy clearly states, Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Misplaced Pages. Mike V • Talk 16:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Mike V if the nature of the emails you are referring to is the recent oversightable events it's hardly fair to pillory LB over a private email with that info. In my view that would have been the only way to appropriately address this situation to the degree it should be. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Mike V, is this about the allegation that someone posted porn photos and claimed they were LB? I'm confused about that claim and how certain it is, and also unsure what I can ask about it on WP. If it's true, action should be taken against that editor. WP:OUTING says: "Posting links to other accounts on other websites is allowable on a case by case basis." Did LB do something beyond that? Sarah (SV) 17:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't wish to speak any further to the specifics of what may or may not have occurred as the topic matter seems to be making Lightbreather uncomfortable. However, I feel that the evidence I've submitted to the Committee supports these findings. I'll leave them to decide. Mike V • Talk 18:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• Lightbreather, is it discussion of the issue that makes you uncomfortable, or the allegation of outing? Sarah (SV) 19:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Mike and Lightbreather, I'll say no more about it. Sarah (SV) 20:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

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

Lightbreather strongly admonished

1) Lightbreather is strongly admonished to adhere diligently to the harassment and outing policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Initially I was considering to propose a ban. However, looking through previous cases shows that admonishments were issued for situations comparable to the one I have presented to the Committee. (e.g. Russavia, Vlad Fedorov) With that being said, I understand that this is only one facet of the conduct being examined and that any final decision will be based upon the cumulative findings. Mike V • Talk 05:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree a site ban should not be our first choice here. I think there is other ways to handle this short of banning. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposals by Hell in a Bucket

Proposed principles

Misplaced Pages is a vast and diverse website

1) Misplaced Pages by it's nature is vast, diverse and contains many different viewpoints and a high amount of tolerance is needed to work here.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Harassment is prohibited

2) Harassment on and off wiki is unacceptable. False claims of harrasment or personal attacks can have negative effects not only on wikipedia but in real life, for the community, readers and the targeted editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discrimination in all forms is prohibited

3) The goal of Misplaced Pages is to give knowledge and make it accessible to everyone. Discrimination against race, gender, sexual orientation or religion is prohibited as this does not allow a full spectrum of information.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Collaboration

4) Collaboration is not limited to just the people who agree with you. Editors don't have to like other editors but editors are required to collaborate with each other.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Lightbreather

1) Lightbreather has engaged in forum shopping, sockpuppetry, block evasion and a battleground attitude.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Lightbreather

1) Lightbreather is indefinitely restricted from starting reports and requests that can lead to administrative actions broadly construed with the obvious exemptions of vandalism and BLP concerns. If she has an issue she may request one of two assigned Arbs for permission to proceed once. She may not ping, email or otherwise forum shop uninvolved admin, editors and arbs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) Violation will be judged based on severity. Egregious or mitigating factors can be considered and violations ensue with lengthening blocks. A warning on the first infraction, a block for 24 hours on the second incident, 1 week for the third a month for the fourth and on the fifth violation a block of six months and if it goes to a sixth incident a site-ban that can be appealed after 12 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Lightbreather

Proposed principles

Civility is one of Misplaced Pages's five pillars

Per Misplaced Pages:Civility

1) Civility is one of Misplaced Pages's five pillars. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Misplaced Pages's civility expectations apply to all editors

Per Misplaced Pages:Civility

2) Misplaced Pages's civility expectations apply to all editors during all interactions on Misplaced Pages, including discussions at user and article talk pages, in edit summaries and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Incivility

Per Misplaced Pages:Civility#Incivility and Misplaced Pages:Civility#Identifying incivility

3) Incivility, whether on pages or in edit summaries, includes name-calling, gross profanity, personal attacks, casting aspersions, belittling, baiting, harassment, wikihounding, lying, and quoting others out of context to misrepresent or malign.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree with this, but I can only assume that you mean to apply this to the behavior of others (which in some cases is undeniable). I think there is plenty of evidence that shows your own violations of each of these principles. Karanacs (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The civility policy provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems

Per Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages:Civility#Incivility and Misplaced Pages:Civility#Dealing with incivility

4) The civility policy describes not only the standards expected of users, but also provides appropriate ways of dealing with problems when they arise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dispute resolutions and interaction bans

Per Misplaced Pages:Civility#Dealing with incivility and Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution#Resolving user conduct disputes and Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Interaction ban

5) Editors are encouraged, but not required, to ignore isolated instances of incivility. In the case of egregious personal attacks and harassment, dispute resolution processes, including interaction bans, are appropriate ways of dealing with the problem.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Administrator conduct

Per Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Administrator conduct

6) Administrators are expected to lead by example, to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others, and to follow Misplaced Pages policies.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Involved administrators

Per Misplaced Pages:Administrators#Involved admins

7) Editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved because they may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The Principal of Least Drama

Per Misplaced Pages:Civility#Notes

8) Administrators should try to follow The Principle of Least Drama: when given a choice between several ways of dealing with a problem, pick the one that generates the least drama.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Karanacs

Incomplete - I will remove this notice when I'm finished. Lightbreather (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1)
(A) Karanacs misrepresented appropriate notification as canvassing.
(B) Karanacs ignored editor's arguments and threatened to take her to ANI.
(C) In a discussion about an editor, Karanacs implied that the editor thinks women who are successful on Misplaced Pages (including Karanacs) are "not 'normal.'"
(D) When an editor explained, with multiple diffs, why she would not retract an opinion on her own talk page, Karanacs replied with a lecture with the edit summary "hypocrisy."
(E) Karanacs blocked an editor for canvassing after a fellow admin had already addressed the problem.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Evidence used on this page must have already been added at the evidence phase. Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

EChastain

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Eric Corbett

3) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Hell in a Bucket

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Scalhotrod

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sitush

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sue Rangell

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Gaijin42

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Harassment & Civility

Lightbreather has been the target of off-wiki harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lightbreather maintains off-wiki blogs and twitter accounts where she engages in commentary about other editors

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lightbreather has been the target of, and source of, on wiki behavior such as hounding, polemics, incivility

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lightbreather carries Misplaced Pages:Competence_is_required#Grudges and views any disagreement as a WP:BATTLEGROUND

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While Lightbreather has been the subject of actual harassment and incivility, she also has a very low bar for what she considers harassment/incivility and has accused others when not appropriate (See also the WP:GAME finding below)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Other Polices

Lightbreather has engaged in multiple instances of WP:OUTING (on and off wiki)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lightbreather has engaged in WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:CANVASSING failure to WP:LISTEN

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lightbreather has made multiple accusations of WP:SOCKing, WP:COI, WP:INVOLVED, WP:BIAS and other WP:ASPERSIONS which WP:ABF without sufficient evidence which amount to WP:PA

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lightbreather has edited and otherwise behaved to make a WP:POINT

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lightbreather has engaged in WP:LAWYERing, and other WP:GAMEing of wikipedia policies, both to excuse her own actions, and to find fault with others actions

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lightbreather has (admittedly) engaged in (isolated?) incident(s) of WP:SOCKing by editing while logged out

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Noticeboards/accusations

1a) Lightbreather is restricted from making any posts at SPI, AN, ANI, AE, EW, (Jimbo Talk?) or other forums for the purpose of accusing other editors of misbehavior or requesting sanction. Exceptions for obvious vandalism/BLP. On an individual basis, she may request permission from an non-involved non-canvassed admin (eg, she may not pick the admin) (via adminhelp template?)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1b (alternative) If Lightbreather makes a post to an administrative board alleging misdeeds or requesting sanction against other editors, where her evidence is not sufficient "reasonable suspicion" she may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lightbreather is restricted from appealing any outcome of an administrative request against other editors

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Lightbreather is prohibited from questioning or making any insinuations about other editors identity, accounts, conflicts of interest, etc in any discussion, except in a formal noticeboard report (that complies with 1a/1b)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 5

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: