Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lightbreather (talk | contribs) at 20:05, 29 May 2015 (→Post-retirement comments: ok.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Comments on this page are to be sectioned, not threaded. With the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and comment only in their own section.

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 11:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ca2james' section

I'm curious about how comments on the workshop page will work what with threaded discussion being prohibited. If an editor wishes to comment on a proposed item, does that editor create their own "Comment by editor" section somewhere or should they do something else? Thanks for the clarification. Ca2james (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Sectioned comments are enforced on this workshop talk page, not the workshop page proper. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I see now that I misinterpreted the notice regarding sectioned comments. My apologies, and thank you for your speedy reply and your patience. Ca2james (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding my concerns and questions about the use of diffs on the workshop page. It is my understanding that any diffs listed during the workshop phase must be drawn solely from the diffs presented on the evidence page as it existed when the it was closed, and that no new diffs can be added during the workshop phase. My understanding would preclude using diffs that were presented and then withdrawn before the close of evidence because they aren't listed at the close of evidence. If I'm wrong I'd like to know, as this will change what I add to this phase. Thank you for the clarification. Ca2james (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather's section

• Regarding the Case management notice on the workshop page. Item #4 says, Similar arrangements will apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page. Does that apply to the i-ban suspension in addition to the separate talk-page sections? Lightbreather (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, I would again like to ask: Who is this editor Esquivalience who started editing November 1, started adding to the workshop area before the evidence phase was closed, , and proposed deleting an essay in my sandbox?

I asked on the evidence talk page, and their answer, especially their style of editing it - and in my talk section - makes me anxious. Lightbreather (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In response to the "started editing before workshop opened", that was mostly our mistake. I accidentally set the editnotice to expire 00:00 24 May, instead of 23:59 24 May. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, AGK, and Roger Davies: I am very concerned about this section of the workshop area: Proposals by Mike V: Proposed findings of fact. Can you please chime-in ASAP? Should I also notify the WMF Community Advocacy people? Lightbreather (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that these issues are now resolved and discussion on the workshop about the area you are concerned with has now stopped (and should not continue). SPI is the place to discuss possible sockpuppets. Doug Weller (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Roger Davies and Doug Weller, I'm sorry, but I need further advice on what workshop participants can and cannot, or should and should not, include on the workshop page. At 17:11 UTC, Roger said, Workshop proposals are expected to flow from matters in evidence, but 25 minutes later, Doug said, Evidence used on this page must have already been added at the evidence phase. Can you please confer and advise?

(FWIW: I've reviewed the Gun control ArbCom workshop and the GGTF ArbCom workshop. The former had 102 diffs/links and the latter had 203 diffs/links, but it's not clear that all those diffs/links were directly from the evidence phase.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• I just got a harassing email and I'm throwing in the towel. I have forwarded the email to the functionaries and to the WMF Community Advocacy people. I have also deleted the section that I'd start working on on the workshop page, and I hope the arbs will do me the kindness of respecting that. I was probably a fool to keep participating in this proceeding anyway. Here is a copy of the email for y'all to enjoy as a parting gift.

From Ricky dicky in your icky

Date 26 May 2015 21:59 UTC

Word of advice. I know you have probably created new sock accounts due to your impending banning, but since you seem to lack some technical skills, I wanted to tell you how to do it properly. First, ditch the accounts you already made. They have been flagged already because you didn't cover your tracks. Ok, now to change your dynamic ip address. The process is different for each ISP, but it usually involves sending a command via URL to your router. Google it. We know you can Google, don't we?

Now that you have a new ip address open up a new incognito browser and create your account. Repeat and create a new account to for each ip. Since you are a little on the slow side, you should create at least 5. I figure you will get caught at least 3 times, so leave a few for spare.

Finally change your ip again then continue your futile defense. I'm enjoying your sheer idiocy.

Good luck and see you soon! Hint: pick a male name so that if someone calls you a cunt you will have no cause to be self righteous.

More information about Ricky dicky in your icky

IP: 69.140.102.238, c-69-140-102-238.hsd1.va.comcast.net

E-mail: rskaggs@yahooter.com

URL:

Whois: http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/69.140.102.238

I imagine that last bit of info is all smoke and mirrors, but if anyone can figure it out, please contact the arbs. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: Between the porn pictures and this, if you weren't convinced before, I hope you are now: Sexism IS a problem on Misplaced Pages. That doesn't mean every man on Misplaced Pages is sexist, or even that most men on Misplaced Pages are sexist, but Misplaced Pages is definitely hosting a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Lightbreather (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on the tone and content of the email, I would bet $50 that it was written by Two kinds of pork (talk · contribs). Of course, since he's just been indef-blocked by ArbCom, maybe no one wants to take that bet. MastCell  19:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Post-retirement comments

• My retirement is only to reduce my stress. Although I cannot control others' harassment of me, I can control my participation in activities that are stressful. I did not expect this proceeding to stop, only my involvement in it, so please do proceed. If a clerk or arb needs to contact me, please email me. Lightbreather (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• While it's true that the first/last time I quit, the GGTF ArbCom was underway, I didn't quit because of the arbcom. I wasn't an involved party in the arbcom, and I only provided evidence in it because Eric Corbett (and those who defend him) was the reason that I quit. (The discussion What it boils down to in the Editor Retention archives sums it up pretty well.) As for coming back, I hadn't planned to, but once Hell in a Bucket publicly connected my IP address to my username (against policy and the instruction of the GGTF ArbCom clerk), I really had no other choice. Lightbreather (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: her very first edit as an IP was to accuse others of editing while logged out! I've read the link you gave four times now, and I don't see me accusing others of editing while logged out. Did you mean to give some other (not first) diff? Lightbreather (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Gaijin42, for refactoring that statement, but it still misrepresents me. The editor in question presented evidence against Eric Corbett at the GGTF ArbCom. It was Sitush who suggested the editor was a sock at ANI (because, Sitush said, there is no way I have enough evidence to take it to SPI), but by that time the editor had been blocked, just a few hours earlier, for NOTHERE. My comment was less about whether or not the editor in question was a sock and more about how involved parties in the arbcom were involved in getting the editor blocked. I will say no more on this subject, as it is from seven months ago. Lightbreather (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: I didn't break the rules, but if I did its only because someone else made me do it, and any discussion of that breaking of the rules is harassment. Why did you put that in quotes, as if I ever said that? Did I ever say that? If I did, please provide a diff, otherwise could you please refactor it? Thanks for removing the quotation marks.

IF I were to refactor your assessment to get closer to the mark (as much as is possible in a single sentence), it might be something like: Whether or not rules are enforced often depends on who you are and who you know, and discussions of "rule-breaking" without evidence is casting aspersions, and doing so across multiple and inappropriate forums is harassment. Lightbreather (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have set my page notice to semi-retired. After the arbcom closes, I will re-set it to retired, but please, arbs/clerks, email me if there is something that must have my answer. Lightbreather (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Capeo: WP:OUTING says, 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. I had never voluntarily posted my IP address, and yet twice my username was connected to my IP address, even though a clerk had asked that evidence be emailed. We don't block every user who commits vandalism, yet it's still vandalism, and outing is still outing, whether someone gets sanctioned for it or not. Why it didn't get addressed at the time, I'll leave it for others to guess, but if it bears consideration anywhere, it's this proceeding. Lightbreather (talk) 00:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, case talk pages are not the place to be trying to further your argument or making accusations. The proper place for this was the Evidence page and now you have the Workshop page you can contribute to. This page is for asking questions about the workshop phase of this case. Liz 01:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

My comment was in reply to suggestions by Karanacs, Capeo, and Gaijin42 that my retirement during the GGTF ArbCom was some kind of ploy - that I might now be repeating. That was uncalled for. They could have just asked, Since Lightbreather is retiring, will the case proceed? Lightbreather (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the case will proceed, whether you retire or not.  Roger Davies 05:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Roger Davies. Yesterday, I sent an email to clerks-l - which I understand goes to clerks and arbs? - but haven't received a reply yet. May I expect one today? Lightbreather (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No email has come through. I suggest you send separate emails this time. Doug Weller 12:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

OK. I used arbcom-l this time. Please let me know if you receive it. Lightbreather (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

user:Lightbreather Received. As the clerks would not have been able to deal with it in any case, it should have been sent directly to us. 'Doug Weller' 20:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

Thank you, and sorry. Someone told me that clerks-l went to clerks and arbitrators. Lightbreather (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Faceless Enemy's section

@Lightbreather: why not file a SPI if you have a strong suspicion of who it might be? If you have strong evidence of a distinctive editing style or something, then go ahead and present it. Otherwise this just feels like more WP:ASPERSIONS. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Esquivalience's section

@Lightbreather: Unless I'm being aspersed here, what is the suspicion? The workshop was closed by protection, and the protection was automatically lifted. Esquivalience 20:10, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's section

"aspersed"? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC) In response to Esquivalience. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Stephen's section

Attacked or criticized. In the context of having aspersions of sockpuppetry cast at them above. Stephen 01:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC) In response to Newyorkbrad. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Gaijin42's Section

Liz L235 LB's workshop section on Karanacs consists entirely of diffs that are not in evidence. If this is accepted practice, what is the difference between the evidence and workshop phases? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

As this is my first arbitration case as a clerk, I'll ping Doug Weller, AGK & Roger Davies, the drafting arbs, and see if they can address your question. Liz 17:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Workshop proposals are expected to flow from matters in evidence. They're not meant as a way of ambushing other editors,  Roger Davies 17:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather It may help if you added some context as to your new evidence/workshopping. For example the conduct of Eric that you are posting was mostly already scrutinized in other venues (GGTF, AE, etc). Are you asking for sanctions against Eric (and others) for those actions (which seems like it might be a bit of Double Jeopardy) or are they merely for context to argue that they some how mitigate the evidence against you? I don't disagree with you regarding some of your allegations of incivility, but rehashing things that were already scrutinized seems unhelpful, even if you (or I) disagree on the result of that scrutiny. Since one of the key things people are accusing you of is repeatedly appealing things and rehashing old conflicts, it may be an unwise course of action. (in addition to having the issue that you are workshopping even more things not in evidence) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Re workshop evidence : I would not be opposed to tweaking of diffs in the workshop phase (eg, on an accusation of say incivility/3rr that had diffs provided during the evidence phase, replacing/augmenting with another diff showing the same behavior but perhaps in a more clear manner). Also exception must obviously be made if the diff in question occurred after the end of the evidence phase as further evidence of an ongoing problem. However, discussion of wholesale new topics that were not in evidence at the time of close should not be discussed during workshop without some extenuating circumstance or a general extension of the evidence phase. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

For the benefit of everyone involved (including to LB's benefit) this proceeding should continue. This is LB's second retirement - as with many retirements it is not likely to be permanent. If/when she returns, to the degree that her conduct was acceptable/justified/mitigated, she should not be working under a cloud of suspicion that she "got away with it", that will only cause further drama and harassment (and will likely end up here again). To the degree that her conduct requires some sanction/correction, she should not be immune due to retiring. For the other editors whose conduct is a concern, the same logic applies. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Lb had "no choice" except the choice to comment 40+ times on the GGTF case as an IP, as well as numerous other pages where she had previously edited while logged in. Including specifically commenting about herself in the 3rd person multiple times , and her very first edit as an IP was to accuse others of editing while logged out socking! ] She socked, she got caught, and she continues to dissemble and mislead about it. This pattern is really the crux of the entire case - I didn't break the rules, but if I did its only because someone else made me do it, and any discussion of that breaking of the rules is harassment. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather As you like to say, please refactor. I (nor anyone else) said your retirement was a ploy. We merely stated that the case should continue. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs section

@Gaijin42, some of that is from LB's original accusations, which she removed from Evidence. I added a diff to those in my evidence just before the evidence closing. I don't mind if my behavior is scrutinized - I do not believe I have acted inappropriately in any way. If the arbs disagree, I will have learned something. If they think my actions were fine, then we can stop the casting of aspersions. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Without any comment whatsoever on the email that LB posted, I do hope that Lightbreather's retirement claims do not affect the progress of this case in any way. She retired during the last Arbcom case in which she was a participant and then resurrected her account after the case closed. There's no reason to believe that this time will end differently. Karanacs (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather, I did not say that your retirement was a ploy. I said that you retired before (fact) and you resurrected your account later (fact). Whether it was a ploy to evade scrutiny or a result of wikistress brought on by participating in an Arbcom case is something only you can answer...and honestly, it (your intentions) doesn't really impact either my question or its answer. You are in a similar situation now as you were 6-7 months ago; it would not be surprising for the resulting behavior patterns to match. (N.B. I also retired and eventually came back. It happens.) Karanacs (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sitush's section

Just as a technicality. If Lightbreather is to be allowed to refer to the evidence that she presented and then removed, and also to refer to the evidence that she subsequently added, it makes a bit of a mockery of the length restrictions.

I have nothing to gain by saying this: there is a long spiel of nonsense about me in her final evidence, so she is perfectly ok to use that. I'm more concerned about the issue of precedent, which is something that someone as prone to lawyering as LB can be should surely understand. The precedent is that anyone could do the same in future cases: people could add, remove, add, remove indefinitely and then call it all up in the Workshop phase. Either bin the length restrictions, make this a very specific exception or disallow it. - Sitush (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket

So what's the call on this new and improved evidence phase called the workshop? User:Doug Weller, User:AGK, User:Roger Davies, USER:L235 and User:Liz. Specifically agreeing with the concerns of others stated here. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Capeo so far as I know no one considered what I did as OUTING. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Liz, User:L235, User:Roger Davies, User:Doug Weller, User:AGK. I believe I'm showing a great deal of restraint here but I'm getting a bit annoyed about the continuing accusations of Outing. Would you review and take appropriate actions. If that action is nothing, I disagree but so be it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If the accusations are unfounded that will be taken into account in the final decision. After all, all allegations need supporting by diffs. We do allow a degree of latitude to all on the case pages so that the various issues can be examined.  Roger Davies 05:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Roger Davies I appreciate the latitude then and will point this out to the committee so it isn't swept under the carpet, is the link to the policy of checkusers and spi in Arbcom cases. It's in the drop down block which says to make the report on the arbcom talk pages. This was the instruction from the drafting administrator User:GorillaWarfare . That should hopefully in the committees eyes at least wash my hands of that situation. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Capeo's section

I'm assuming LB's retirement isn't going to stop these proceedings from going forward, correct? As pointed out in evidence and above this isn't the first time she's retired during a case. Capeo (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a point where LB's multiple accusations of policy breaking during the events surrounding her socking reach the level of a PA? Because I commented during that case (I believe I was the first to point out the IP was LB), watched the SPI transpire and all that followed LB's block, then went back through the whole episode digging for diffs for the evidence phase of this case but can't seem to find any users who were sanctioned except LB. Is there something I missed? If not it would seem she would need to stop accusing users of breaking policy, especially in regards to something as sensitive to outing, if it in fact didn't take place. Capeo (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather, your IP address is not personal information under that policy. You were socking. Linking IPs to users is commonplace in SPIs. All other info gleaned to make the link were things you posted on wiki. Outing is about actual personal information and is outlined quite well in the link you provided. And please don't come back with the legit editing while logged out argument. Your actions don't fit the criteria outlined on that page either. Honestly, you do yourself no favors with still trying to fight this battle. When it all went down, instead of tossing blame about, a little contrition would have likely gone a long way. That time has probably passed now though. Capeo (talk) 04:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

J8079S

That Lightbreather and her "frenimies" have damaged wikipedia by using it as a social media is obvious. In light of her confession (POV pushing for 'balance") and retirement If you came here to chat or gloat please disengage. Her claim of good faith does not seem supported but her frenimies are not innocent either. J8079s (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)