| Revision as of 07:13, 18 December 2014 view sourceUnbroken Chain (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers32,193 edits →ANI: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:03, 18 December 2014 view source Roger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits →Voluntary, indefinite IBAN between HIAB and LB: respNext edit → | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| ], I think the finger pointing has already been done, it's the continued finger pointing that has me concerned. From Early Septmber to the end of November I didn't talk to Lightbreather. The problem only came when I (and others) uncovered the socking. I am resistant to Ibans when the behavior on my end was clearly a policy based approach. It may have been the most sensitive one but it was inside policy. In essence it comes off as a conseq ] (]) 12:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC) | ], I think the finger pointing has already been done, it's the continued finger pointing that has me concerned. From Early Septmber to the end of November I didn't talk to Lightbreather. The problem only came when I (and others) uncovered the socking. I am resistant to Ibans when the behavior on my end was clearly a policy based approach. It may have been the most sensitive one but it was inside policy. In essence it comes off as a conseq ] (]) 12:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :: I have no opinion on whether anyone is engaging in misconduct. What I talked about was ways of formalising entirely voluntary arrangements between you and one or more editors. However, going down this route would require the explicit agreement of all the people covered by the IBAN. If they don't wish to enter into a voluntary agreement, then obviously no voluntary agreement can take place. In such circumstances, all the the usual ] processes are open to you (or anyone else for that matter). These could include reports to WP:ANI or, if the dispute/s involve/s GenderGap task force interactions, to WP:AE as the topic is now under discretionary sanctions. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC) | |||
| Happy to help, though not sure how I would. You two can decide to just avoid each other (without any enforcement), but Chillum is right that a formal IBAN should be discussed in a wider venue. ] <small>]</small> 04:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC) | Happy to help, though not sure how I would. You two can decide to just avoid each other (without any enforcement), but Chillum is right that a formal IBAN should be discussed in a wider venue. ] <small>]</small> 04:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 14:03, 18 December 2014
Proposed I-ban between you and Hell in a Bucket
Hi Lightbreather. Keeping in view the recent interactions between you and HiaB, I have proposed an I-ban between you two directly below this . Although I am not too familiar with the history between you two, what I have seen in the past month or so seems more than enough to think that an I-ban between you two has become necessary. It should bring some peace of mind for both, and also benefit the project because the project could hope to get some nice, more productive output from two eds. I certainly do not want to pressure anyone into accepting anything, and would surely like some others to offer their opinions / criticisms / suggestions on this proposal, and hope both of you would give serious consideration to this proposal. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm all for stopping the madness. Honestly my head is hammered today so I probably will not be on too much today either way to discuss it further until later tonight. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am still drinking my coffee, and pondering what I want to do next. I'll consider this option, but won't say for sure until later today or maybe tomorrow. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think for the immediate future (3 - 6 months) this would be a wise choice. We can revisit it then to determine if the issues surrounding the dispute between you two has settled down enough where you two can talk without trying to spit in each others faces. Because, right now, the only thing you two communicate is insults and accusations.--v/r - TP 21:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am still thinking about it. Also, although I agree that I have made allegations against Hell in a Bucket, I don't recall insulting him - unless the allegations themselves are considered insults, but I believe I backed them up with evidence. Lightbreather (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- Some of the accusations I find insulting but from a manners POV, Lightbreather is usually very polite, that's part of what frustrates me so much dealing with her, she has the potential that Neotarf or CMDC didn't to actually accomplish things IMO. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am still thinking about it. Also, although I agree that I have made allegations against Hell in a Bucket, I don't recall insulting him - unless the allegations themselves are considered insults, but I believe I backed them up with evidence. Lightbreather (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think for the immediate future (3 - 6 months) this would be a wise choice. We can revisit it then to determine if the issues surrounding the dispute between you two has settled down enough where you two can talk without trying to spit in each others faces. Because, right now, the only thing you two communicate is insults and accusations.--v/r - TP 21:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
- OK @Salvio giuliano, TParis, Hell in a Bucket, and OrangesRyellow: I've had a day to think on it, and I would like an IBAN between Hell in a Bucket and me. But instead of 3 to 6 months, as TParis has suggested, let's say indefinitely until we both agree to lift it? Lightbreather (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- My concern is why a Iban is nec when the discourse is civil enough it's the delivery that's in the question. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am not so much concerned with "civility" here, although that may be a plausible issue. What I am thinking about is words like "productive", "useful", "beneficial". I do not foresee anything productive / useful / beneficial coming out of interactions, and although I do not like saying this, I only foresee the opposite of those things being produced from interactions, and taking away a lot of yours, and this projects time, energy and peace-of-mind resources in the bargain. An indef I-ban looks like a good idea to me.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. LB socked (Personal attack removed) and HIAB caught her. That she didn't like being caught is of no consequence. If HIAB doesn't want to enter into this IBAN, then your only recourse is to ask at ANI and gather community input.Two kinds of porkBacon 05:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- @Two kinds of pork: you are not welcome on this page if you're going to talk about/to me like that. I socked, yes, though not for the reason that I was "busted." Also, I've done my time, and then some. But most importantly, I. DID NOT. LIE. An accusation of lying is a severe accusation, and without evidence it is casting aspersions. If you will please strike that part of your comment, I will strike this part. Otherwise, stay off of my page and stop repeating this lie. Lightbreather (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. LB socked (Personal attack removed) and HIAB caught her. That she didn't like being caught is of no consequence. If HIAB doesn't want to enter into this IBAN, then your only recourse is to ask at ANI and gather community input.Two kinds of porkBacon 05:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Oh. You want to continue argueing who did / did-not do what wrong / right, instead of finding the way forward ? I suggest an indef I-ban between LB and you too is necessary.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
OrangesRyellow, our banning policy allows bans such as you are suggesting only when there is a community consensus for it. Proposing it privately is of no effect. Community sanctions may be discussed on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You can discuss such things on one of the noticeboards but there is little point in suggesting it here. Even if the users agree it will still not be binding if broken. If the users are willing to avoid each other then no ban is needed. Chillum 08:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Voluntary, indefinite IBAN between HIAB and LB
@Hell in a Bucket: Will you agree to a voluntary, indefinite IBAN between us? If you will accept my word, I will accept yours. If either of us wants to lift the ban, we can go to the other's talk page and ask civilly. Lightbreather (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: would you mind being a counselor or witness to this? Lightbreather (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Here's my problem with an interaction ban, everyone who disagrees with you will eventually be on an Iban. Seriously and I can only comment on what I've seen but it seems like anyone who disagrees with you is the problem. The level of personal responsibility is very low, or at least it appears to me to be that way. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- You seemed agreeable to it yesterday. But setting that aside, a question: Do you have any Ibans right now? Lightbreather (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was undecided yesterday, I was suffering a self inflicted hangover and that's why I stated I would discuss it further when I felt better.. The answer to your question, no I am not under any sanctions, Ibans or otherwise. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry you weren't feeling well. As for Ibans, I don't have any either. I don't think we should be worrying about how many you or I might have in the future. What I want to know is, will you agree to a voluntary, indefinite Iban, that we can talk about in the future when we're ready to agree on lifting it? Lightbreather (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- Help me understand what this will accomplish? I've given this some thought and what happened, yes I think that your claims about outing, harrassment etc need to stop. I can't make you not feel that way but your interpretations are contrary as to what is considered those things in the community. My actions here have been to hold you responsible for editing logged out, I have held you accountable for outing other editors. I say I but I mean I was involved with those, obviously the actual judgement came down from other editors. An interaction ban would not stop a report on socking, it wouldn't stop the behaviors period. I've done research of various things I've told you since the inception of the actions leading up to the GGTF case from August on ] and again my wall of post from Sunday some of the same things are present. The Iban perturbs me because it seems to me is that the only function it would serve would be a mistaken shield from someone that has followed encyclopedia policy to arrive at this point as I did in the lead up to the block. That's why I've been resistant to an Iban or the things OrangesrYellow or Tparis said because I remember the attempts made to actually talk this over with you. The common theme is that everyone that disagrees is wrong and everyone that agrees is helpful. At what point does the people here think that you aren't disrupting the encyclopedia to argue your case and doing it because you can't work the other people here? I personally think you have the ability to do so but you refuse to do it. I don't expect you to agree with what I wrote but these are my thoughts about it overall. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- At this, simply adding a brief FOF to the
GamergateGenderGap case stating that a voluntary IBAN has been agreed, along with a voluntary (but enforcement) IBAN as a remedy, seems the route forward of least drama as it can be achieved with no fingerpointing. Do either LB or HIAC object to this? Roger Davies 05:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)- Considering neither LB nor HIAB are parties to that case, just how on earth are you going to make a FOF? Oh wait, you'll just drum something up behind closed doors again? You're doing a hecka job there Brownie.Two kinds of porkBacon 07:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misspoke; I had the other GG case in mind. We could add a FOF and remedy to that via a request at WP:ARCA, or an IBAN could be handled at WP:AE under the FFTF discretionary sanctions. The point is appropriate low drama procedures - which could be used, if desired - are already in place, Roger Davies 07:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Considering neither LB nor HIAB are parties to that case, just how on earth are you going to make a FOF? Oh wait, you'll just drum something up behind closed doors again? You're doing a hecka job there Brownie.Two kinds of porkBacon 07:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- At this, simply adding a brief FOF to the
- Help me understand what this will accomplish? I've given this some thought and what happened, yes I think that your claims about outing, harrassment etc need to stop. I can't make you not feel that way but your interpretations are contrary as to what is considered those things in the community. My actions here have been to hold you responsible for editing logged out, I have held you accountable for outing other editors. I say I but I mean I was involved with those, obviously the actual judgement came down from other editors. An interaction ban would not stop a report on socking, it wouldn't stop the behaviors period. I've done research of various things I've told you since the inception of the actions leading up to the GGTF case from August on ] and again my wall of post from Sunday some of the same things are present. The Iban perturbs me because it seems to me is that the only function it would serve would be a mistaken shield from someone that has followed encyclopedia policy to arrive at this point as I did in the lead up to the block. That's why I've been resistant to an Iban or the things OrangesrYellow or Tparis said because I remember the attempts made to actually talk this over with you. The common theme is that everyone that disagrees is wrong and everyone that agrees is helpful. At what point does the people here think that you aren't disrupting the encyclopedia to argue your case and doing it because you can't work the other people here? I personally think you have the ability to do so but you refuse to do it. I don't expect you to agree with what I wrote but these are my thoughts about it overall. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry you weren't feeling well. As for Ibans, I don't have any either. I don't think we should be worrying about how many you or I might have in the future. What I want to know is, will you agree to a voluntary, indefinite Iban, that we can talk about in the future when we're ready to agree on lifting it? Lightbreather (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was undecided yesterday, I was suffering a self inflicted hangover and that's why I stated I would discuss it further when I felt better.. The answer to your question, no I am not under any sanctions, Ibans or otherwise. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
- You seemed agreeable to it yesterday. But setting that aside, a question: Do you have any Ibans right now? Lightbreather (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually we weren't a nbamed party to the case request but that isn't the be all and end all, that list is made by editors like you and me. Both of us were quite involved despite the protests to the contrary. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I like that idea, Roger Davies. Can you help me do that? Lightbreather (talk) 10:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
In fact, considering Two Kinds of Porks' repeated baiting and casting aspersions, and a personal attack on an ArbCom member here on my talk page, and considering that I've told him he's unwelcome here and asked him outright to leave me alone can we please include him, too? Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Roger Davies, I think the finger pointing has already been done, it's the continued finger pointing that has me concerned. From Early Septmber to the end of November I didn't talk to Lightbreather. The problem only came when I (and others) uncovered the socking. I am resistant to Ibans when the behavior on my end was clearly a policy based approach. It may have been the most sensitive one but it was inside policy. In essence it comes off as a conseq Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on whether anyone is engaging in misconduct. What I talked about was ways of formalising entirely voluntary arrangements between you and one or more editors. However, going down this route would require the explicit agreement of all the people covered by the IBAN. If they don't wish to enter into a voluntary agreement, then obviously no voluntary agreement can take place. In such circumstances, all the the usual dispute resolution processes are open to you (or anyone else for that matter). These could include reports to WP:ANI or, if the dispute/s involve/s GenderGap task force interactions, to WP:AE as the topic is now under discretionary sanctions. Roger Davies 14:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy to help, though not sure how I would. You two can decide to just avoid each other (without any enforcement), but Chillum is right that a formal IBAN should be discussed in a wider venue. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@HiaB. You may not see it like this. Maybe it is difficult to see this from your perspective. "Missing the forest for the trees" comes to mind. Whatever. From my perspective, the discourse between both of you has degraded way below acceptable levels. You say fingerpointing is continuing. Correctly. It is an unproductive activity for both, no matter who is doing it, and I suggested an I-ban only so that activities like that stop, and the discourse should not continue to degrade more and more, as it most surely will if the I-ban is not implemented. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
- I understand the reason why you did it and honestly I'm not upset it was. I was just trying to understand the context behind, I know it doesn't always seem lke it but I do think about things and attempt to alter my approaches when it is needed. I'll giveit some thought but I understand you are only doing what you thought is the best solution for the situation and it may well be, I just think a discussion is a good idea. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
SPI
You should really withdraw that SPI while you still can. You have no new evidence, so you are just redoing the same SPI that was just closed. You are going to end up sanctioned, and I would not be surprised if banned. I think EChastain was someone socking and poking at you, but double jeopordy ya know? Seriously, drop the stick. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- I was going to let it go because she said she quit, but she's back. Also, please note that I added evidence/diffs that are not in the first SPI. Lightbreather (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
ANI
The duplicate SPI is basically why. ] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)