Initiated by Robert McClenon ( talk) at 17:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

India-Pakistan arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

§Standard discretionary sanctions

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Robert McClenon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

There are currently multiple WP:ANI threads concerning the hypothesis that the Indo-European languages originated in India, as opposed to the hypothesis accepted by most scholarship that these languages originated to the west of India and spread both east into India by migration and west into Europe by migration. They include Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents# Massive POV pushing problem at WP:FRINGE and Indo-Aryan topics. My question is whether tendentious and disruptive editing about this aspect of the ancient history of India is subject to WP:ARBIPA, in which case discretionary sanctions are applicable, or whether WP:ARBIPA only applies to the modern history of the subcontinent. Robert McClenon ( talk) 17:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise

No need for clarification: of course DS applies. The ideological fight over the origins of the Indo-Aryans is a classic hotspot of modern nationalist discourses in India, and the backdrop of modern Hindu nationalism is the one thing that keeps these disputes alive on Wikipedia and makes them so much politically charged. This is precisely what the DS are for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

I am surprised to see this asked. The sanctions are exactly what they say. Time is not of the essence and, as Fut. Perf. notes, the particular issues being referred to are a well-known hotspot on WP, certainly in part because of what is often descrived as the Hindutva "revisionist" approach to history. - Sitush ( talk) 21:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}

< !-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ancient History of India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

• "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed." No time frame is given, or in my opinion, implied. If it was desired to limit the DS to the modern era, the remedy would say so. And I think a time-frame would be a horrible idea, one cannot disconnect the long (even ancient) history of this region from the modern states. Agree with FPaS on his interpretation. Courcelles 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Seems pretty straightforward. The discretionary sanctions apply here and to all related pages, whatever period they cover. Dougweller ( talk) 21:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues. By way of comparison, topic ban restrictions in the Argentine History, and Fæ cases are explicitly time-limited so there is no reason to presume that a time limit is implied here. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• I concur with my colleagues above,   Roger Davies ^talk 19:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• There is no time limit to the DS -- Guerillero | My Talk 18:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• I also agree with the above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Same here. This request can be archived at any time as solved now. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Initiated by John Carter ( talk) at 15:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3#Ignocrates-John Carter interaction ban

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• John Carter ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Ignocrates ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) notified here

Statement by John Carter

Requesting clarification if the existing i-ban prohibits taking the other party involved to ANI for input of the broader community in the event of further obvious stalking which by avoiding explicit mention of me does not necessarily explicitly violate the i-ban, but is clearly of a STALKing nature, and, if it does, amendment to permit it, with of course reasonable consequences to me as the possible filer should the request there be found to be poorly based or otherwise improper. John Carter ( talk) 15:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If the entire case were about me casting aspersions, it is unthinkable that Ignocrates would have been subjected to an i-ban as well, although that was specifically included in the remedies. I believe there are reasonable questions raised by comments here regarding the basic honesty of involved individuals, which may well be worth considering. But, to clarify, does the ruling rule out taking obvious stalking as per WP:STALK, which might fall short of being completely clearly an "interaction ban," to ANI? This request was prompted by the existing WP:AE filed regarding this matter, and that, to date, I have felt that I would not be able to do so. Can such requests be made? Also, just for clarification, I understand that if such requests can be made in general, any requests made which are clearly found baseless or poorly justified would still reasoanbly qualify as a violation of the interaction ban. Also, I suppose, if ANI requests are permitted, are there specific limitations to what can and cannot be said in such requests? John Carter ( talk) 18:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ignocrates

I have no idea what the poorly worded statement above based on non-existent evidence even means, so I can't respond to it. This entire case is about John Carter casting aspersions. It's why the Ebionites 3 arbitration case was filed; it's why he was stripped of his tools; it's why we have this I-ban. Despite the restriction, he has used every available opportunity to continue this aggressive behavior at ARCA, AE, and on the talk pages of other editors. He can't seem to stop himself from doing it. Ignocrates ( talk) 17:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

John Carter seems to misremember that I requested a two-way interaction ban. That was the point of filing. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Information update from NE Ent

Both those folks were blocked JC, I as a result of AE request by Ignocrates. NE Ent 23:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Note/clarify: it was not my intent to offer any opinion here, simply to notify the committee that the parties may not currently post here (unless the committee directs some action to enable that). NE Ent 00:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ebionites 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

• In my view wikihounding/wikistalking someone you have an interaction ban with is a violation of that interaction ban. As such if a party to a topic ban has evidence that the other party is hounding/stalking them, they should present that evidence at AE. If you have queries about whether something is or is not covered by an arbitration remedy, ask the arbitration committee on this page (or by email if it is sensitive). A discussion at ANI of the sort that was proposed here would be a breech of the interaction ban in my view.
  The purpose of an interaction ban is to separate people who cannot interact with each other productively and civilly - it means do not interact with the other person, do not follow them around the project, do not comment on what they have to say, stop thinking about them - if you can't do that while working in the same area as them then go and find different corners of this project to edit. Use Special:Random and find a stub to expand for example, improve the encyclopaedia while expanding your own horizons away from the other party and the topic(s) that got you ibanned. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• First, let me say that I hope Ignocrates and John carter both return to editing. But, I cannot fathom how to make it clearer that both need to stay as far away from the other as possible. Courcelles 20:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Initiated by Cambalachero ( talk) at 21:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Case affected

Argentine History arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 1

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Cambalachero ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Exemptions for the articles Raúl Alfonsín, Carlos Menem, Fernando de la Rúa, Adolfo Rodríguez Saá, Eduardo Duhalde, Néstor Kirchner, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and Pope Francis

Statement by Cambalachero

I am currently topic banned from articles that talk about Latin American history. As clarified here, the line between history and modern times in Argentina has been set in 1983 (end of the National Reorganization Process dictatorship, and restoration of democracy). The articles listed are the articles about the presidents of Argentina since 1983, and the Pope. As such, the bulk of their articles is/would be about their presidencies (or papacy), already within the allowed limits, and do not require any special exemption. However, the sections about their early lives and early careers usually need to explain the dictatorship and the dirty war, to provide the appropiate context. In other cases, the aftermath of the dirty war still sparked controversies in the national politics (see the dirty war article, sections "Truth commission, decrees revoked", "Continuing controversies" and "Repeal of Pardon Laws and renewal of prosecutions").

Have in mind that the original discussion that led to the case was about articles from the XIX century. Those small exemptions will not go anywhere near the original controversy.

In relation to modern Argentine events, I wrote the featured article 2013 Rosario gas explosion, helped to promote the articles Néstor Kirchner, Argentine legislative election, 2013 and 2012 Buenos Aires rail disaster to the "In the news" section of the main page. I also wrote new articles, featured in the DYK section, for 18A, 2012 cacerolazo in Argentina, 2012 fiscal austerity in Argentina, 2013 Buenos Aires train crash, Argentine quota law, Boudougate, Broad Front UNEN, Eduardo Arnold, Madero Center, Mario Poli, Periodismo para todos, Public image of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, la Cámpora. Cambalachero ( talk) 17:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@ DGG:: If an article about a modern controversy includes information about an unrelated historical one, I would consider it a coatrack article, needing to be fixed. An article must stay focused on its own topic. As for the limit, it's a limit established by the arbcom, to set which articles and topics are covered by the topic ban and which ones are not. Also this phenomenon you talk about is usually about issues that stay unresolved from one administration to the next, and so the media talks about both ones in relation to it. The phenomenon, however, only goes back for a limited time to the past. The media may talk about Bush when talking about issues of the Obama administration that started back then, but if some issue goes back up to Washington, Lincoln or other old historical times, its historical aspect is usually treated as trivia and dismissed from the news headlines, focusing instead on the most recent events related to said issue. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Add MarshalN20, the other user included in this topic ban, requested a precise clarification on the limits of the ban, which articles are included and which ones are not. It is archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#Request for amendment (December 2013), and it was agreed again by the Arbcom to set the time limit at December 1983. True, it was MarshalN20 who requested the amendment and it was only applied to him, but it's the same topic ban and it would be the same discussion. Cambalachero ( talk) 15:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's be less philosophical and focus more on tangible things. The article on Barack Obama is a featured one, and mentions George Bush, but does not mention George Washington or Abraham Lincoln anywhere. For similar reasons, a featured article of Cristina Kirchner would mention previous presidents but would not need to mention Manuel Belgrano or José de San Martín at all. There is a historical background for the gun control controversy, but there is no need to mention it in Obama's article, only the things related to gun control under his administration. Cambalachero ( talk) 01:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Courcelles: The internet archives of online newspapers only go back up to a certain point, and the articles of current leaders (Pope Francis and Cristina Kirchner) are the most checked ones by casual readers, and thus the ones that should have priority in being as perfect as possible. I would follow the list mentioned in a backwards line, from Francis and Kirchner first to Alfonsín last. Incidentally, the list in said order would also go from the least involved with the dirty war to the most involved ones (the Kirchners were just mere students that left a city, and Francis did not hold any noteworthy religious rank; Alfonsín and Menem were active politicians at the time). Still, it may be easier and less time consuming to ask for this whole group a single time, rather than coming here several times to make similar requests for each new case. Cambalachero ( talk) 21:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MarshalN20

As a professional historian, I agree that it is difficult to draw a "line" between what is history and what is the present. Nonetheless, for the sake of understanding the subject, historians have (time and again) made these lines (they vary, of course, depending on the context and historian). ArbComm has also indeed drawn a line in this case.

Regardless of that, the purpose of ArbComm is to focus on user behavior. Cambalachero has conducted himself exceptionally, and has provided a series of positive contributions for the project since his topic ban (including a featured article). This positive behavior should be far more important for the committee's amendment decision than anything else.

Sincerely.-- MarshalN20 ^Talk 15:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {yet another user}

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Argentine History: Arbitrator views and discussion

• As a purely preliminary comment, I am not sure that for any nation whatsoever, there is a clear separate between historical and current controversies. Current disputes tend to include the interpretation of historical examples. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

to use the US as an example, debates on current politics often refer back to the principles of US government as established in the 18th century; and much work on the writers of the Constitution is motivated by their implications for current events. See , for example, our article on Gun control. That's not coatrack, but , in the US, one of the possible and much-debated principles underlying constitutional interpretation. Nor, I think, has Europe forgotten World War II, or the third world the period of European imperialism. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• @ Cambalachero:, I think this is reasonable enough. That said, I would be slightly more inclined to grant an exemption for those people more tangentially connected to the dictatorship... is there a subset of the articles you'd like to work on first? Courcelles 20:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
• This seems a reasonable request. I would be inclined toward granting the standard exemption for these (articles, talk pages, pages related to FA review), revocable by an uninvolved admin in the event of misconduct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd rather either designate one admin that was willing to supervise, or say send it back to ArbCom for review if needed, rather than the open-endedness of any uninvolved admin. We've done the first two strategies. Not, to my memory, the any uninvolved admin route. If no one objects strongly, I'll throw up a motion tomorrow. Courcelles 03:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure we've also done the latter, though I can't recall the details now and, speaking personally, I'd prefer to have any uninvolved administrator authorised to revoke the exemption (which, by the way, I too support). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Although I sympathise with DGG's comments somewhat, I think we can do this. Not decided yet on which route to take about rovocing it if necessary, I need to see the pros and cons. Dougweller ( talk) 11:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Argentine History)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - S Philbrick (Talk) 15:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. I think this strikes a balance between the various methods of revoking the exemption. Copyedit or change as desired. Courcelles 04:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
2. L Faraone 05:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
4.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

   Reconsidering my vote in the light of the very sensible opposes as I've long been in favour of ArbCom-lite. Are any of those how've already supported unable to live with a copy-edit the last sentence of the exemption to read: If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made here.   Roger Davies ^talk 17:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

   Given they would be modifying an Arbcom motion, not a sanction, we really ought to be notified of any sort of action. Perhaps "If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made here. The administrator making such a revocation must log it on the Argentine History case page, including diffs that explain the reason for the revocation." The original safeguard is still in my eyes best, because I'm not a huge fan of allowing any admin to do this versus a designated mentor. Courcelles 17:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

   That seems a good compromise. A bit of suggested tweakage: "The administrator must log the revocation on the Argentine history case page, together with a rationale supported by diffs." Which is a little bit shorter,   Roger Davies ^talk 18:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

5. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
6. Dougweller ( talk) 08:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

   That would make it "If Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be revoked either in part or in whole by an uninvolved administrator. Any subsequent appeal should be made here. The administrator must log the revocation on the Argentine history case page, together with a rationale supported by diffs." I'm fine with these changes. Dougweller ( talk) 18:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

   Done, except that "here" makes no sense when this is published elsewhere, so specified. Courcelles 19:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

7. Support amended version. -- Euryalus ( talk) 19:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
9. The amendment resolves the problem I had, so switching to support. Thryduulf ( talk) 21:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
10. -- Guerillero | My Talk 21:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
11. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
12. Better now that the appeals come here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
13. Support as amended. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

I support the exemption, but not the mandatory referral. If Cambalachero thinks the administrator in question has made a mistake, he can appeal to us. Demanding that the administrator ask us to confirm his decision is a waste of time (his and ours). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose per Salvio. On balance I support the exemption, largely on the basis of a good record of content contribution and particularly the featured article, since the topic ban was imposed. But mindful of the reasons for the initial ban, I'd prefer the simpler process described by Salvio, to requiring the uninvolved admin to seek confirmation of their action. A "bad" revocation can be raised at AE or directly with the admin concerned, in the usual way. If this last clause of the motion was modified, I'd support the motion as a whole. -- Euryalus ( talk) 02:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Per Salvio and Euryalus. I fully support the exemption, but I disagree with the mandatory referral; any disagreement with a revocation should be treated like any other appeal of an arbitration enforcement action. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Abstain/Recuse

Comments

• Courcelles Support in principle though I'd like to suggest a clarification of our intent here:
  • From "This restriction may be withdrawn if there is misconduct by an uninvovled administrator, either for one page or for all of them. Any administrator who does so is required to open a amendment request for the Arbitration Committee's consideration."
  • To: "If, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, Cambalachero engages in misconduct in respect of any of these articles, this exemption may be temporarily revoked either in part or entirely by that administrator prior to referring the issues back to the Committee for review via a amendment request ."

      Roger Davies ^talk 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

    • That works, Roger Davies, but I think it needs just one more word to make it an imperative that the admin open the ARCA... Courcelles 05:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Initiated by — Mythdon at 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Case affected

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy "Mythdon further restricted"

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Mythdon ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Lift the new remedies and enforcement concerning verifiability and reliable sources at this remedy

Statement by Mythdon

I am requesting an amendment concerning the restriction barring me from verifiablity/reliable sources that came as a result of this clarification and this discussion

This restriction came as the result of me having unwilling to produce guideline for tokusatsu articles as outlined in the decision at the closure of the case while persisting in the behavior that led to various urges to seek outside input and work more collaboratively of my views regarding verifiability. There not long after I received a topic ban from Tokusatsu/Ryulong after this enforcement of the gratitious mention I made of Ryulong

I have not edited the tokusatsu articles since my unblock given as I held myself to voluntary restriction from editing the topic area

The edits I make these days include contributing to the articles I have interest including television stations and The Sims and making minor corrections to errors in articles like spelling and grammer and vandal fighting. I realize my activity has gone down a bunch since my unblock with having let go of all the old habits and old behaviors that led to my September 2009 banning which six months later when I repeated my habits I was blocked indef. My edits gone down a bit since my unblock and I go into spurts of being active and then inactive and then active again

Having no longer any interest to edit the topic area as I outgrew the subject area and having held myself to the voluntary restriction for the security of allowing myself get over the emotional attachment to the articles and to force myself to be productive in other areas. I had been asked and advised by various editors to go find other topic areas to edit while I was editing the topic area and honestly I can say I never made one positive contribution to the topic area but since my unblock I have made productive contributions to other topic areas with referenced content. I have been stumped on what to do about the situation about me being restricted commenting on reliable sources as on one hand I feel it be wrong to only return to the topic area as part of a process pertaining to a remedy but on the other hand if I have nothing to offer the topic area then I think if I just learned from the behavior that led to it that I can make things a fresh start in other topic areas and a new opportunity to avoid the confrontations and behaviors that led my past sanctions

But having learned from the behavior that led to it from my strict interpretations of policy and failing to collaborate with others about my stances and refusing to produce a guideline, what I am requesting is to lift the no commenting on verifiablity and reliable sources sanctions. I have been watching over the topic area even though I no longer edit it and none of the arguments that occurred that led to the guideline remedy are happening as most of those disputes during the time I edited was by a certain editor (myself) doing whatever he could to get the topic area to where he saw fit as most of the never ending disputes were initiated by myself. So the way I see it is this restrictions purpose has been served in having learned from the behavior and its been five years and a lot of the topic areas problems left when I was topic banned and is now only moot as if I were to source an article I would not be allowed to discuss it if an editor were to question my edits

If the sanction should be lifted I will promise to avoid any behavior that led to the sanctions and urges on verifiability and will work more toward an effort to collaborate on verifiablity and to let go of the old strict interpreations of policies including verifiablity which I already no longer am hung up on strict disruptive intepretation of policy. But if the arbcom decision should be that I return to the topic area to help produce a guideline then thats what I will do. Most of the arbs that were arbs at the time this was put in place are no longer arbs and I recommend all arbs take a look at the case before coming to any decision. I will be bound by any result the arbcom should come of this. Thank you for taking the time to read. — Mythdon 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Reply to motion

Noted. I think this is fairest way to go about as opportunity to further work on old past behavior showing I have infact learned from my past sanctions. From what I read of this is that the restriction is to remain in place but to now both simplistically and broadly construe the intent of the remedy. I shall keep this all in mind in my future editing even after the restriction ends. All is noted here and it all works out. — Mythdon 00:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I know much of this case from start to finish, and there is a long history so there will no doubt be some uncertainty regarding what happened here. To bring some context to this, after the original case remedies were enacted Mythdon had initiated a significant number of "clarification/amendment" requests (brace yourself as there's a bit to read in each: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). The third request/diff is the discussion where this restriction was imposed by way of motion, and his last request is found in the last diff where the site ban in 2009 was imposed. I understand Mythdon appealed to the committee but ultimately his 2012 appeal was directed to the community. The appeal was successful (the community agreed to lift the site ban).

Overall:

• I don't oppose this appeal to lift the further restriction, despite an initial reservation regarding the obvious timing of this appeal. He seems genuine in his intention to abide by his promise that we will no longer see the previous disruptive conduct he exhibited (such as tendentious editing, harassment, treating Wikipedia as a bureaucracy, etc.) which brought about the remedies + further restrictions in this case.
• I think there should be explicit mention on the case page that if the same problematic conduct issues arise, it should be brought back to the committee to deal with swiftly. I don't think it would be appropriate for dispute resolution to have to start from the bottom if issues persist.
  • 5 years, 5 months & 28 days ago is not really the way to look at the duration. Even though the restriction was imposed in August 2009, he was site banned from September 2009 to just before December 2012, so it was only really in place from 2013 - though that isn't much to go on seeing Mythdon made just 85 edits during the entirety of 2013, most of which were over just 3 days in July. So we are then looking at 349 edits from 2014, most of which were during May and June 2014. If that's the sort of irregular activity we can expect, maybe it won't be an issue - but I expect it will increase (seeing his edits were at 2500+ in 2009 and and 4000+ in 2010 when problems were constantly recurring).

I hope that assists somewhat anyway. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 07:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

I was around back when Mythdon was originally banned. At the time, he was known for being extremely terse, unfriendly, and overly concerned with trivialities. See his first RfA back in 2009 to get a sense of what I mean by that. But I don't think it's really relevant anymore, as he's clearly changed quite a bit. He has expressed a genuine understanding of where he went wrong, and as far as I can tell, there have been no problems since being unblocked.

This sanction serves no further purpose and should be lifted. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ryulong: Arbitrator views and discussion

• That restriction predates my time on this Committee to the point that I'd never actually tried to parse it. And it is a doozy. I read it, and I'm not sure what the 2009 ArbCom was really trying to do, or what the end restriction actually is. (Example; "Mythdon is prohibited from making any comment on reliable sources or verifiability unless comments are made at the talk pages of those guidelines and policies". Is he banned from questioning the reliability of an individual source, or discussing those polices in the general case?) I'm not familiar with this user, but the clean block log since being unblocked in the fourth quarter of 2012 speaks positively. Courcelles 21:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Given the lwo edit count since the 2012 unblock, I'm more inclined to do a suspension of the sanctions than a complete revocation of them. Courcelles 01:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging @ Mythdon: for the below motion. Courcelles 19:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• "5 years, 5 months, 28 days ago" - whew, that's a long time. I'd be interested in seeing any arguments against this. Dougweller ( talk) 21:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - my comment about the length of time reflected my opinion that that's enough time for someone to change their attitude. I agree with Ncmvocalist that there should be an "explicit mention on the case page that if the same problematic conduct issues arise, it should be brought back to the committee to deal with swiftly." Dougweller ( talk) 11:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
• Inclined to support. Going to go through archives to determine what exactly they were going for first though. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• The restriction from discussing reliable sources seems a little much... I would be inclined to support a suspension as Courcelles suggested. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• I feel the same way as GorrilaWarfare, so I to am thinking Courcelles' suggested suspension is the best way forwards. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• The original paperwork on this is not easy to follow. Realistically we can either radically simplify the restriction or suspend it altogether. So, if someone would like to propose something ...   Roger Davies ^talk 05:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Motion (Ryulong)

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted with Mythadon's current edit count being 8910. -- L235 ( talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 06:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. If experienced arbs are finding the 2009 wording clunky, it is time to go in a different direction. I think this covers both a desire for a way out of sanctions, while also addressing concerns of the low edit count since the 2012 unblock. Courcelles 19:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

   For ease of use, can the clerk who enacts this (if it passes) please note the exact edit count when this is closed, for ease of use later? Courcelles 19:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

2. Made a minor word change (remove "hereby"). Otherwise support. -- Euryalus ( talk) 19:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Dougweller ( talk) 20:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
4. -- Guerillero | My Talk 02:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
5. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
7. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
8. This seems like a quite reasonable course of action. Also I echo Courcelles' request to the clerks. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 08:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
9.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

Initiated by Ncmvocalist ( talk) at 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Standard_provision:_appeals_and_modifications

Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t) ( principle 3.1.2 - Deliberate and careful use of discretionary sanctions in particular)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Ncmvocalist ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

My first request for clarification concerns the AC procedures - standard provision for appeals and modifications. In particular, the section entitled "Modification by administrators" in the following situation:

1A) An administrator X blocks an user for a period of time after reviewing a complaint alleging a breach of a topic ban (which was imposed as a case remedy). After the block has expired, administrator Y imposes another block of the same or a longer duration for the same complaint (and where there are no further breaches). Administrator Y did not obtain prior affirmative consent/agreement from administrator X, or at AN, AE, or here, for imposing the further block. Can the committee please confirm in those circumstances whether administrator Y's further block would be considered a modification of administrator X's block, and that such an action is unauthorised?

My second request for clarification concerns the AE sanction handling case (principle 3.1.2 - Deliberate and careful use of discretionary sanctions) in the following situation:

2A) An administrator X refuses to block an user after reviewing a complaint alleging a breach of a topic ban (which was imposed as a case remedy). Other administrators opine on the issue at AE and there appears to be division regarding the appropriateness of any block (and the appropriate duration for a block even if it is agreed). Administrator Y unilaterally imposes a block (where there is clearly no pressing need to), and did not obtain prior affirmative consent/agreement from administrator X, or at AN, AE, or here for imposing the block. If there is a division in opinion at AE regarding the appropriateness and duration of a block, has the committee indicated to its admins that they can unilaterally impose a block anyway? Does principle 3.1.2 only apply to discretionary sanctions? Or does that principle apply to requested enforcement of case remedies too?

I have listed 1A and 2A above only, as I may have a follow up under each. Thanks, Ncmvocalist ( talk) 19:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh!

I think it's embarrassing that AE admins were responsible for attempting to derail this request into one about Eric Corbett ( talk · contribs), when this request is really about (as the name of the case suggests): Arbitration Enforcement Sanction Handling. One of the main parties to that case was AE-active Sandstein ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and it's disappointing to note that Sandstein's problematic behavioural patterns seem to continue, and that too in the name of Arbcom.

The community elected the committee, not Sandstein. Even if for some bizarre reason you want Sandstein to remain entitled to keep up his repeated wikilawyering, his overly bureaucratic approach and his OWN tendencies at AE (be it as far as the noticeboard requests or actions he takes at those requests), I think the community is entitled to hear that from you directly, rather than his comments on arbitrators 'deliberate intentions'. Alternatively, if previous reminders or indications have not worked for him to change his approach to be more consistent with what is expected at all levels, maybe something else needs to be tried.

Even here, I am concerned that Sandstein appears to improperly suggest that:

1. I am filing an appeal on behalf of a certain blocked user (Eric Corbett) but have concealed it in the form of this request;
2. I've filed this request to circumvent the appeal procedure, and thereby game the system in relation to Eric Corbett's block; and
3. I and several other users are (a) friends of Eric Corbett, and (b) therefore incapable of assessing when enforcement is appropriate and necessary.

For the avoidance of doubt, those suggestions are false accusations made in bad faith without a shred of evidence (except possibly the bit about "other users" being friends of Eric Corbett as I don't know how accurate that is. Still, Wikipedia is not a battlefield even for this type of thing.

I do wish the arbitrators would find a more effective way to tell Sandstein to cease engaging in such needlessly problematic conduct. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies: Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me you are saying principle 3.1 of the case only applies to discretionary sanctions, and does not apply at all to requests to enforce individual editor topic ban case remedies enacted by the committee. That is, in the 2A hypothetical, you are saying that even if uninvolved administrators (plural) opine and determine a breach of a topic ban in 2A is minor that it does not warrant a block (or that a block is going to be ineffective), it doesn't matter; any admin who wants to block and first imposes a block will have a supervote. Is that correct? And is that what you want/wanted? Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Note

Risker (who was an arbitrator at the time of the case) has noted today that Roger Davies seems to have surprisingly forgotten why a certain principle was added in an older arbitration case. That appears to be happening in respect of the principle in this case also (and of course, I invite Risker to correct me if I'm wrong or provide more detail about the principle in this case, as she was also an arb when this principle 3.1 was unanimously passed with Roger's **unreserved** support). The principle says because of the priority given to enforcement of arb sanctions..."When it is not entirely clear whether a sanction is appropriate, or when an administrator knows that there is a division of opinion regarding whether a sanction is warranted, and there is no pressing need for immediate action, it may be best for an administrator to raise the issue in the discussion venue for Arbitration Enforcement and seek a consensus, rather than to act unilaterally." [emphasis added]

I'm pretty sure I've been patient and brought this up in a very reasonable way, given there were a lot of ways this could have otherwise been raised. I also did think the 2A situation has been expressed clearly in my comments here (indeed, Thryduulf's comment accurately summarises the situation I am seeking clarification in relation to, and what the principle intended to address). Unlike the example in Roger's comment which may have been contemplated in initial AE design, the situations like what I've described in 2A have gradually arisen in more recent years because of a few very specific AE active admin who have not got the message fully, or who are often being misguided (perhaps by users with their own agenda). Please effectively address it.

I can't even imagine how the case principle I just quoted (or the AC procedures I linked to above) seriously intended to deliberately allow an admin to unilaterally impose a block even if the block is against already-formed consensus not to block (that is how I interpret Roger's statements too). I thought the idea is to reduce the number of unnecessary appeals and not force them to become a much more regular and frequent feature. Also, when a consensus is clearly desired by the admins in the first instance who are still reasonably discussing the best way to handle the request, I don't believe this principle or the procedures intended to (as Roger's statements suggest to me) deliberately let an admin make a unilateral block and cut the desired discussion off where there were no genuine supervenient circumstances requiring that action. I really don't see how that approach is ensuring priority enforcement actions are taken carefully in the first instance where possible, or are helpful especially in those situations.

Perhaps more discussion and views are needed. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

After countless genuine attempts have been made to convey the essence of "spirit versus letter" (or that a narrow view is not likely to resolve matters) to an AE admin here over the years, responses even as of today leave a clear indication that issues will persist in the future too. Seems such a pity too, but I can't help but wonder what will eventuate next time. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 16:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IP

I feel it's worth noting that the situation described in 2A just played out in a recently closed AE request (it's still there but hatted). I assume that part was unmentioned in the hopes of avoiding a dramastorm, so I won't name it directly. That said, I consider it valuable context that arbs should be aware of and review. 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 18:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Since the dramastorm came anyway (sorry, Ncmvocalist) I will comment on the AE after all. Despite the criticism, I have found that Sandstein goes out of his way to accommodate other admins positions at AE. Most commonly he will state he disagrees with something but will not stand in the way of consensus. I have also seen him full on defer to other admins who disagree with him at AE when closing a case. His actions in the related AE surprised me. I think this is the first time he has pushed through his preferred action in the face of what was arguably a developing consensus for a simple warning. I'm not saying he was wrong, Sandstein is usually technically correct (the BEST kind of correct!), but it is curious that he would act... Out of character, I guess? I'm not sure how best to describe it.

to Roger, would you consider closing an AE request with no action an administrative action? It does not require use of the tools, but it is something only an admin is allowed to do. If so, does it enjoy the protection of other AE admin actions? So if, for example, HJ Mitchell had closed the case with a warning, would Sandstein need a "clear and active consensus" to block instead? I ask that you consider these scenarios seriously because it appears to me Arbcom is inadvertently creating a race to action in contentious cases where you are intending "deliberate and careful use". 204.101.237.139 ( talk) 16:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

I'm glad to see this has been asked already, I was about to. I think the answers so far to 1A are pretty reasonable and uncontroversial. I'm more interested in Arbs' answers to 2A. Normally, an admin can take unilateral AE action without waiting for a discussion, and then the normal AE rules apply to reverse that action: unlike a normal admin action, consensus would be required to overturn the AE action. However, when a discussion is already underway, and there is no consensus on the blocking (or a preliminary consensus not to block), it seems unfair to unilaterally make the decision to block, and then insist on a new discussion to overturn it. If it really is acceptable to do that, could not an admin with an opposing viewpoint decide to "officially warn" someone, or block them for 1 second, and then close the AE request, preventing any further blocking without a brand new discussion? (I'm not advocating that, of course, just pointing out that it kind of follows from the answers to 1A). AE enforcement is meant to streamline things, but in the scenario described above, it's being used instead as a trump card. It shouldn't be. If there is an ongoing discussion at AE with differing viewpoints on blocking among the uninvolved admins, an admin shouldn't wade in and block before a consensus develops. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 18:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Short comment from Collect

The principle of "do it first so the other admin will be wheel-warring" has been discussed before, without any solid answers. Zugzwang is a rough equivalent. Why not recognize that valid issue raised by Floq above - and issue a sua sponte dictum that blocks should generally require the initial input of (say) three admins in order to have standing against a simple reversal by another admin? Thus reducing the value of "first move wins." Collect ( talk) 20:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Observation by TenOfAllTrades

While the IP has alluded to it, I'm going to make it explicit. This is another damn "hypothetical situation" thread that's actually not at all hypothetical, and like it or not the Arb's responses are going to be read in that context. Yep, it's another damn Malleus/Eric Corbett thread: link to discussion, closure.

Unlike most threads involving Eric Corbett, it was dealt with in a reasonable amount of time, after a reasonable discussion, and resulted in a reasonable final decision that wasn't followed by a firestorm or wheel warring. The ArbCom should be very cautious in how it approaches the question in 2A, in that the question seems to be exploring ways that an ArbCom decision to impose discretionary sanctions can be nullified by a single admin. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Passing comment from Harry Mitchell

I was one of the admins who opined against a block in the "hypothetical" scenario. I disagree with the block for reasons I've stated elsewhere (mainly that it is based on an overly literal interpretation of the remedy with no regard for its spirit), but at the end of the day AE cannot afford to become deadlocked like ANI whenever a big name is involved. The solution? More objective, level-headed admins at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

As the admin who made the block discussed in the second question, I'm offering the following comments:

• This looks like an appeal in the guise of a clarification request, and an attempt to circumvent the Committee's rule that appeals are heard only if they are made by the user who is the subject of the sanction. Because that user has chosen, in this instance, not to appeal the block, and the user asking the question is not in any way affected by this situation, there is in my view nothing that needs – in the sense of an actual controversy awaiting resolution – to be clarified.
• On the merits, I'm of the view that any discussion among admins or others about an enforcement request does not prevent any admin from taking, or not taking, any enforcement action they deem appropriate.

• First, the rules about enforcement actions (as well as discretionary sanctions, which are not at issue here) do not envision or require any form of discussion among whoever. The only exception is the case mentioned in the question but not at issue here because no discretionary sanctions are concerned: " Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE". Even this does not require admins to follow or look for consensus, but only advises them to listen to the opinions of other admins (which they may then choose to disregard). As far as I know this was an intentional decision by the arbitrators who drafted these rules. Any discussion that does occur is merely an aid for coming to the right conclusion, but it is not envisioned by any rule to be a consensus-forming process. Discussion and consensus become relevant only at a later stage – in an appeal, either to the community or to administrators.
• Second, as has been mentioned above, requiring admins not to act in the absence of a consensus to act would have two effects that would severely impair the effective enforcement of the decisions made by this Committee. First, sanctioned users who have many friends, as seems to be case here, can block enforcement just by having enough people show up that any consensus becomes unfeasible to establish and timely action impossible to take, as is regularly the case on community noticeboards. Second, this would in effect compel admins who are interested in arbitration enforcement to take action as soon as possible without waiting for discussion, which would likely impair the quality and acceptance of enforcement actions, and by extension the effectiveness of this Committee's decisions. I would prefer that not to be the case, because I think that the discussions among the admins who regularly work at AE are often very helpful.  Sandstein  08:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

with regard to your first point, I hope you do not mean to imply that an admin may act against known consensus. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that would be pointless because an admin acting against known consensus would have to expect their action to be overturned on appeal. What I mean is that I read the existing rules to mean that admins are neither expected not required to wait for or act only based on consensus. If and where the Committee expects admins to look for consensus instead of enforcing ArbCom decisions on their own initiative, they should be clear about it and tell us so in the rules, which is currently not the case.  Sandstein  09:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies: Thanks for your advice concerning a de minimis rule. If it is indeed the view of the Committee that violations of ArbCom decisions that are considered less severe according to some standard should not result in enforcement action, then the Committee should articulate this standard explicitly. I currently work on the assumption that if you topic-ban somebody from "X, broadly construed", this means that you expect this editor to be blocked in each and every case in which they make a X-related edit outside of the policy exceptions, no matter what the circumstances may be. If that is not so, then you should tell admins which criteria they should use to decide whether or not to take action. I caution, though, that this (and any added consensus requirements) may have the effect that your sanctions against popular and well-networked users may be enforced much less effectively, if at all, than your sanctions against other editors.  Sandstein  09:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Newyorkbrad: I appreciate your input, and in most routine AE cases, such as applying discretionary sanctions to run-of-the-mill nationalist propagandizing, there is indeed a broad range of possible admin responses. But when the Committee directly bans a particular user, the only enforcement approach that works is, in my view, a zero-tolerance, black-and-white one. That's because it's the Committee's job to make these kinds of hard decisions and to assume the responsibility for them, including for how broad the sanctions are phrased. Expecting enforcing admins to exercise some degree of discretion is just a form of passing the buck. If you choose to topic-ban a popular, well-networked user with many friends, you must expect - as has happened in this case - a degree of drama or even harassment to occur in each case of enforcement, no matter who takes action or how. I think it's not fair to expect the admins who volunteer to enforce your decisions for you to take shoulder this load by claiming that it's up to the admins to exercise some sort of discretion that no policy provides for. Instead, the Committee should assume its responsibility and say, yes, we decided to ban this user, broadly construed and so forth, and we (and not the admins) are responsible if they are blocked whenever they do something topic-related, no ifs and buts.  Sandstein  11:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

It seems to to me that the "first mover advantage" is a long-standing Wiki problem which has been dealt with traditionally by consensus and discussion, and application of policy.

The rule making AE non-overturnable effectively gives a form of absolute power to the Admins who frequent AE, which has been abused, just as the absolute power of checkusers has been abused (and historically, almost every other form of power, both absolute and otherwise).

So the instant problem of Sandstein's "overly literal interpretation of the remedy with no regard for its spirit" - and indeed his history of such narrow and binary interpretations, not unusual amongst the Wikipedia demographic, really pales into insignificance with the systemic problem that we have created of non-overturnable admin actions. It would be better, if still not ideal, if these actions were subject to normal community scrutiny.

I understand, of course, that the idea is to prevent an infinite regress. More important though is the inequality

${\displaystyle Community>Policy>ArbCom>AEdecisions}$

The current arrangement breaks this in no uncertain manner.

All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 16:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Risker

I was pinged to comment here. I do indeed remember both this case, and the early stages of the discussion about revisions to the discretionary sanctions process that were made, in part, as a result of that case. The clear intention at the time was to address the fact that AE seems to attract administrators who like to mete out sanctions regardless of the state of the discussion of a request (i.e., to sanction even in situations where a preponderance of administrators do not believe a sanction is appropriate) or just as seriously to interpret the "consensus" of administrators as supporting sanction even in situations where almost all other administrators would say there was either (a) no consensus or (b) a consensus not to sanction. Arbitration enforcement is in some ways even more powerful than arbitration decisions themselves, because at an arbcom case there must be a clear majority supporting a sanction before it can be placed. My read of the two situations described above is as follows:

• 1A) is a clear superimposition of the second administrator's decision, overriding the first administrator's decision. This is not acceptable and, if there have been prior warnings, could easily lead to desysop or other sanction such as restriction from participating in any way in arbitration enforcement for an extended period (Arbcom seems to be big on the "don't appeal for a year" position right now, which would be sufficient).
• 2A) If multiple administrators have opined and there is no really clear consensus for applying sanctions (or no clear consensus on what sanction should be applied) then sanctions should not be applied. The assessment of consensus should, ideally, be done by an administrator who has not participated in the discussion of the request. (The reasonable parallel would be XfD.) Administrators who regularly apply sanctions when there is no clear consensus are also subject to the sanctions mentioned above. It is not helpful to have hardliners applying sanctions that don't have at minimum more than a majority support of uninvolved administrators, either for the reputation of AE itself (it's not appropriate to have a situation where it doesn't matter what others say if Admin Y is going to do what they want anyway) or to ensure that there is a multiplicity of administrators participating.

Those were the intentions at the time of the case, and in the early discussions for improving the procedures. Hope that helps. Risker ( talk) 07:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Lightbreather

If this is meant to clarify a situation like the recent Sandstein/Eric Corbett brouhaha, Ncmvocalist's 2A) should say:

On a talk page, not Arbitration Enforcement, An administrator X refuses to block an user after reviewing a complaint alleging a breach of a topic ban by editor A (which was imposed as a case remedy). The complainant then goes to AE. Other administrators opine on the issue at AE and there appears to be division regarding the appropriateness of any block (and the appropriate duration for a block even if it is agreed). Administrator Y unilaterally imposes a block (where there is clearly no pressing need to), and did not obtain prior affirmative consent/agreement from administrator X, or at AN, AE, or here for imposing the block, although admin X admitted at AE that they misread the topic ban the first time and now agree that editor A did in fact violate their ban, and that "another administrator would certainly be justified in [blocking] per the topic ban's stipulation that [editor A] refrain from discussing the ... topic."

The decision to block wasn't unilateral because Guettarda agreed that EC had violated his ban. [8]

Principle 2.2.1 applies here: Administrator's are not perfect. Go Phightins! acted quickly (5 minutes [9]) after I asked for admin help [10] at WT:WER, as did NE Ent (3 minutes [11]) after I asked a second time, [12] otherwise they might have realized that EC really had broken his topic ban and simply removed EC's comments per the GGTF ArbCom Remedies, which is all that I asked for, before I went to AE.

If admins were perfect, Go Phigtins! or NE Ent would have either removed the comments as I asked, blocked EC (which I did not ask for), or started a discussion here at AE, per Principle 3.1.2. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 21:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

For User:Lightbreather's concerns of casting aspersions please see the section below where I have provided the requested evidence. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 23:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gaijin42

While I see the point of those that say that DS has never required consensus, I think its important to distinguish the difference between not requiring a consensus to do something , and doing something in spite of consensus to the contrary. If an admin sees something requiring immediate unilateral action, they should do so. but when they are aware of pre-existing consensus to the contrary, or at least significant debate, then the unilateral action can seem WP:POINTy. Obviously there is a gradient there and lots of grey area about what would be acceptable vs what would not be. Certainly no action/sanction required in this "hypothetical" but some guidance about the gradient could resolve potential future issues Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Mrjulesd

Since this seems to have been instigated by a particular case, and there has been much discussion about it, I would like to make a point about said case. No appeal I saw was made against the block, except for a frivolous suggestion to have the block extended by a day. This suggests that the defendant felt, at some level at least, that the block was justified. If I was subject to a block I felt was unfair, I think I would make an appeal for the case to be examined, to continue editing, but also to try to prevent injustices in the future from occurring. If I felt the block, and the duration of the block, was at some level justified, I would probably not bother. -- Mrjulesd  (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Now that I've left the Committee, I don't plan to comment regularly in these threads; and I have nothing to say about the specific disputes surrounding this and other pending requests, other than that they are the sort of infighting I'm glad not to be responsible for policing any more. My only purpose in commenting here is to respond to the comment from Sandstein about his approach to AE, because while I respect his dedication and sincerity, I have a different view.

When as an arbitrator I voted to topic-ban an editor from a topic, it was with the intention that that editor should steer clear of that topic, because his or her participation in that topic was unhelpful to the encyclopedia or the community or both. Blocking is, in many cases, the appropriate response when an editor intentionally disregards a topic-ban, and I have always appreciated the work of the admins on AE and elsewhere who enforce our decisions, including with blocking where necessary.

That being said, speaking only for myself, when I proposed or voted to topic-ban an editor from X topic ("broadly construed" or otherwise), it was not my intention that "this means that [I] expect[ed] this editor to be blocked in each and every case in which they make a X-related edit outside of the policy exceptions, no matter what the circumstances may be." (Emphasis added.) As I said, in many, perhaps most, cases an editor topic-banned from X who edits on X should indeed be blocked. However, enforcement of ArbCom sanctions, like sane enforcement of anything, requires the guided exercise of judgment and discretion. No matter how carefully the Committee crafts its remedies, there will always be borderline cases in which editors and admins can disagree in good faith as to whether the topic-ban applied. ( It is not possible even in theory for any decision to anticipate every possible application of a remedy or every borderline situation that may come up.) There will be instances in which an editor may believe in good faith that his or her edit was permissible, and when told it wasn't, will accept the ruling and sin no more. There are editors who faithfully abide by a topic-ban for a long period of time, making useful edits in other areas, and then stray in an isolated instance.

An approach of automatically blocking every such editor in "each and every instance ... no matter what the circumstances may be" may have the advantages Sandstein urges. These are, if I understand him correctly, that discretion and subjectivity in the enforcement process are reduced, and that sanctioned editors will steer clear of boundary-testing. Those may be valid arguments for not giving already-sanctioned editors the benefit of the doubt when they are causing problems. But there are also disadvantages to automatically blocking without considering the circumstances, including the creation of a culture where minor, fleeting, and relatively harmless transgressions become the subject of lengthy debate and controversy, compounding the "battleground" atmosphere that has often led the Committee to impose sanctions such as topic-bans in the first place.

These are general thoughts borne of experience, not focused on any specific block or case, and of course everyone else's MMV. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Regarding 1A, the key part of your scenario are the words "After the block has expired". Once the block has expired any further blocking, for any cause, is a new action. I suspect that in most circumstances this second blocking would be very ill-advised and possibly a bad block. There exists the possibility that the second administrator is in possession of new/additional information (which may or may not be publicly shareable) that justifies the action, so I am not going to say it will always be a bad block. Your question 2A requires more thought before answering. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Regarding 2A, contrary to how I interpret Roger's statement, I see choosing not to act is as much a part of the role of an administrator as choosing to act is. If there is consensus that a block is not warranted then that should have the same protection as consensus to block does. If consensus is unclear then absent an emergency situation or being privy to private information (both of which would need to be explicitly flagged as such) then no single admin should issue a block until it is clear that a block does have consensus. A useful analogy for me is that an admin closing an XfD as "keep" is acting in exactly the same capacity as if they were closing it as "delete", even though only one outcome requires using the administrative toolset. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Concerning 1A, I tend to agree with my learned colleague. As a general rule, I'd say that once an administrator has imposed a discretionary sanction on an editor, said sanction should not be modified in pejus (i.e. should not be made harsher) in the absence of a. the imposing administrator's consent, b. a consensus of uninvolved editors or administrators, b. arbcom's authorisation or d. supervenient circumstances justifying the increase. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Concerning 2A, both the imposition of discretionary sanctions and the enforcement of an ArbCom-imposed restriction do not require consensus; any admin may act without having to go through AE and without having to seek consensus. That's the point of arbitration enforcement, after all: to have the means to stop disruption quickly without getting bogged down in long discussions. Seeking consensus (and, of course, following it) is merely advised and not made mandatory. It's certainly possible to argue that acting without seeking prior consensus and acting against an emerging consensus are different things, and I agree, but this distinction is not supported by policy at the moment. That said, an admin following best practices, for instance, would not have blocked in the circumstances, but the block is neither an abuse of power nor invalid. Of course, should a sysop make a habit of acting against consensus, arbcom would consider asking said admin to stop doing enforcement.

    Concerning what constitutes an admin action, well, this is trickier. In general, declining to act has generally not been considered an admin action and, so, another admin may decide to act without violating the prohibition on modifying someone else's action without consent or consensus. At the same time, an admin who decided to impose a 1-sec. block to prevent others from imposing harsher sanctions would clearly be trying to game the system and could probably be sanctioned himself. My personal feeling is that the only action which qualifies as admin action, in these cases, would be closing (and hatting) an AE thread without action.

    Finally, concerning the issue of de minimis, yes, Sandstein, admins are allowed to exercise their best judgement when enforcing an arbcom-imposed restriction; sometimes, a block will be needed, others a warning will suffice and others the violation may even be too inconsequential to warrant any action and could even lead to a boomerang on the OP. We trust administrators, that's why we have tasked them with enforcing our decisions, we don't want you to become automata. Your common sense is valued. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• This is perhaps the least hypothetical hypothetical I've seen in a while. Blocking after a prior block has expired strikes me as double jeopardy in the absence of either a fresh violation, or a consensus of uninvolved editors that the editor actually needs a harsher block (the situation that comes to mind readily is a community request for an indefinite block/community ban.) But in most cases, if the block "fixed" the issue and there are no new violations, blocks are not punishment, and the discretion of the first administrator likely should be respected. Courcelles 23:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Placing a fresh block for conduct that has already been dealt with - at least on the face of it and absent a rationale from the second admin - seems to me to be gaming the prohibition on modifying another administrator's blocks. On the second question, what distinguishes administrative actions is use of the tools or making an action explicitly reserved for administrators. A refusal to act cannot therefore be an administrative action as no administrative action has taken place. As a hypothetical if a bunch of people are hurling abuse at each other and furiously edit-warring, and - for whatever reason - an administrator explicitly refuses to act in respect of any of them, are each of them immunised against blocking? The common sense answer has to be "Certainly not".   Roger Davies ^talk 09:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • @ Thryduulf and Ncmvocalist:. The point here I think is that AE is designed as a streamlined summary process and has never required collective decisions before admin action. This is how it should be. It enables admins to act swiftly and decisively when the need arises, by authorising admins as individuals. They can ask their colleagues what they think but they're not bound to take those opinions into account. There is no supervote because no vote is taking place. The enforcing admin is entirely responsible for their action and if they get it seriously wrong (or make strange calls frequently) they may be subject to sanction themselves. This will sometimes lead to actions which are controversial and sometimes heavyhanded but the issue then is whether the admin action was reasonable (and the DS procedure sets out guidelines on this) and not whether there was consensus for it.   Roger Davies ^talk 09:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Sandstein What you say is true though I find it wearying that once again a borderline call has been made and once again you are the instigator. Perhaps you might consider writing "de minimis non curat lex" on a post-it note and placing it prominently on your monitor?   Roger Davies ^talk 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ncmvocalist I'm not quite clear what Risker has got to do with this (but for information I replied here). Anyhow, to the substantive point. The text you quote comes from the 2011 case on Arbitration enforcement. Since then we've had a major six-month public review of DS. It doesn't talk about reaching consensus before a decision but it does include an extensive new section, "The Role of Administrators", advising administrators about when to act and when to not act. Whether or not, in this instance, that advice has been disregarded is an altogether difference matter. So, to turn back to the consensus issue, I still it's wise to obtain consensus but it's not compulsory.   Roger Davies ^talk 17:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues's views on 1A - there would have to be something new or overlooked to justify a 2nd block. The phrase 'supervenient circumstances' is a great description but I'd warn against reading our article Supervenience. As for 2A, I'm not convinced it can be answered as a hypothetical question - and I'm not convinced that ArbCom trying to specify an answer wouldn't be micro-managing, rarely a good idea. I'd perhaps be willing to opine on a specific situation. And I like Roger's example. Dougweller ( talk) 19:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Thryduulf about 1A. There would need to be something additional, and in a possibly uncertain case like this it would be very wise to seek consensus first. Otherwise it would facilitate administrator-shopping, and one point of arb enforcement is to avoid this. I also agree with him about 2A. Within the structure of arb enforcement, this is an admin action, and over-riding it would require prior consensus. Otherwise this too would facilitate administrator-shopping. As for the original block that set this off, our discussing this would need to be separate. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• To 1A, I think that it's generally common courtesy to discuss an issue with the other admin when one is considering modifying their action, especially when nothing new has taken place that changes the circumstances since that admin made their decision. Whether such an action would be justified depends on the circumstances, and I'm hesitant to give definitive answers to a wide hypothetical, but I think once an action has been decided and taken, it shouldn't be modified without a very good reason, and "I would've done differently if I'd made the call" is generally not in itself sufficient. The point of having admins is that we should be able to trust them to evaluate individual situations and exercise good judgment, as no two scenarios will be exactly the same. To 2A, arbitration enforcement actions are intended to be undertaken by a single administrator, and that admin takes full responsibility for the action. Preexisting consensus is not required, but good judgment is. If several other uninvolved admins, or uninvolved editors in good standing, are objecting to a sanction or have explicitly declined to place one, that doesn't prevent someone else from doing so, but it is at minimum incumbent upon an admin placing a sanction to carefully consider the objections others made before doing so. If the editor who has been sanctioned does not believe there would be a consensus of admins for the action in question, that editor may appeal, and at that point, consensus of admins (or arbitrators, if the appeal reaches us) would be measured during the appeal. The fact that the editor in question here (we all know that this hypothetical isn't too hypothetical, I believe) chooses not to take advantage of the process doesn't change what the process is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• The eventual action is of course appealable and beholden to consensus. An administrator, if they see a consensus against applying a particular sanction, they ought not apply it because presumably such AE an action would be undone. However, if there is disagreement, and an administrator is confident in an application, I'm hesitant to say they cannot just becuase it's possible there will be consensus against them. The onus definitely relies upon individual administrators. I'd advise that in areas where a consensus is in the process of forming, or has formed, against the administrator action, due caution and restraint be advised. NativeForeigner ^Talk 07:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
• As for "broadly construed" I understand that to mean that it refers to the breath of the topic area -- that a ban from , say, articles on comic books would also include articles on the history of comic books, because normally the same sort of problems would arise. It does't mean that a very minor purely technical violation should necessarily be sanctioned. I recognize this as a possible problem -- there have been instances of an ed. first making a purely technical edit, followed by one that is a little more substantive, and so on. An admin is expected to judge the situation, and see if a pattern is developing that needs to be stopped. DGG ( talk )
• The only comment I am going to make is: there has never been the requirement of a consensus to use DS and I strongly oppose the idea of requiring one. -- Guerillero | My Talk 21:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not agree. There is no requirement for prior consensus, but all admin actions are based upon the assumption that they would have consensus. This is especially true of the particularly drastic ones at DS. Especially because they require an explicit consensus to reverse, it is reckless for an admin to use these without being quite sure that what they are doing will be considered the correct course by the community. It is irrational to say that the committee deals with enforcement by letting anyone give sanctions at their own pleasure. Rather. the committee elevates on the assumption that others will give sanctions properly. For any admin in any circumstance to take an admin action without a good faith belief that it will have consensus is pointy at best, and a abuse of discretion at worst. As an admin, I have always thought that this was implied by the policies on these sanctions just as they apply everywhere else. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• I will not support amending AE as requested. AGK [•] 23:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• The first part seems to be easily answered, so I will defer to my colleague's comments on it. As for the second one, my opinion sits where NativeForeigner's does. If an administrator is confident, acting in good faith, and has a basis for making the block, then I wouldn't say it should be prohibited. Sometimes some administrators see with more clarity than others on stations, sometimes not. If there really is concern about it, accountability via ArbCom is an option.

As for whether refusing to act is an admin decision, we are reading too much into the wording. Admin action would be closure of an AE thread in my books, not just opining there. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Initiated by Lightbreather ( talk) at 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Case affected

Interactions at GGTF arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Lightbreather ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Hell in a Bucket ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [13] (diff of notification of this thread on Hell in a Bucket's talk page)

Information about amendment request

• Remedies
• Hell in a Bucket and Lightbreather interaction banned

ARCA endorses the suggested interaction ban between Hell in a Bucket and Lightbreather (originally proposed as a voluntary Iban by Lightbreather on 16 december 2014).

Statement by Lightbreather 2

Following the GGTF ArbCom case, I proposed an Iban between Hell in a Bucket and myself. [14] He declined. I have left the offer open on my talk page, [15] without reply. However, today, Hell in a Bucket again called me a liar, [16] as he has in the past, without evidence. He also regularly belittles my efforts to create women's spaces to help address the gender gap.

Could an admin please place this Iban? Lightbreather ( talk) 20:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Hell in a Bucket: The link you gave shows that I was blocked for abusing multiple accounts. I maintain that I legitimately edited while logged out, but Mike V disagreed. That doesn't mean that I "lied" anymore than Mike V "lied" (he didn't) for coming to a different conclusion about my reason for editing while logged out. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@ GorillaWarfare and Roger Davies: You were involved [17] [18] in the discussion where I originally proposed this. [19] I don't think this is an unreasonable request, do you? Lightbreather ( talk) 23:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Links to vitriole Hell in a Bucket has spewed at or about me since the close of the GGTF Arbcom:

1. 10 Jan 2015 [20] Oppose- if you feel like you need said safe haven make a feminist wikipedia, let the grown up women stay where they should be (en.wiki) and work with the rest of the community like the adults they are. (Direct response to an IdeaLab project I have proposed related to the GENDER GAP)
2. 1 Feb 2015 [21] Delete blatantly discriminative drivel. (1st comment about an MFD re my user space that is related to my IdeaLab proposal to help with the GENDER GAP)
3. 1 Feb 2015 [22] And this is precisely why I don't take shit like this serious.... (2nd comment about an MFD re my user space that is related to my IdeaLab proposal to help with the GENDER GAP)
4. 1 Feb 2015 [23] I think that part of this scenario is [Lightbreather] is part of the problem, get caught in lies, manipulation and various other activites and yes you are likely to garner a following. (3rd comment about an MFD re my user space that is related to my IdeaLab proposal to help with the GENDER GAP)
5. 18 Dec 2014 [24] Ok so upon release from her block aside from loudly arguing she lied about socking...
6. 18 Dec 2014 [25] [an Iban] wouldn't have stopped the spi or the lies ... everyone on this site knows you lied about editing logged out, no admin in their right mind will take a claim like that seriously. (In an ANI HIAB started about me)
7. 13 Dec 2014 [26] ... let [Lightbreather] weave her path of destruction until people see the real person behind the proclaimed motives.
8. 11 Dec 2014 [27] (Labels my actions lies.)
9. 13 Dec 2014 [28] (592 words and not one diff! In reply to a simple question by GorillaWarfare [29])
10. 1 Feb 2015 [30] I always follow the policy once a liar always a liar and that's a consequence of [Lightbreather's] deception (said yesterday, and what brought me here)

The allegations of lies and not AGF without evidence ( making allegations against other editors or casting aspersions) really bothers me, as well as the contempt he shows ( discussion of problems and issues) for my efforts to create welcoming spaces for women to improve the GENDER GAP. Lightbreather ( talk) 15:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Two kinds of pork: 200 words of your spin on the situation, no diffs. Also, as of today almost 48% (it's been higher) of my edits are to content, compared to your 26%. These rumors that besmirch my honesty and productivity really should stop. Lightbreather ( talk) 15:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Euryalus: Why can't the two of you just avoid each other, as suggested by GW last year? The thing is, I believe that I have been avoiding him, but I don't think he's been avoiding me. In addition to the numbered list of comments he's made to or about me, did you catch the one that I gave in my first paragraph [31] (yesterday, and why I came here) where he says of me I always follow the policy once a liar always a liar and that's a consequence of [Lightbreather's] deception? The spreading around his opinion about me, that he thinks I'm a liar, and his repeated attacks of my attempts to create a women-only space to help (I hope) narrow the WP gender gap... These things are getting tiresome and they're against the GGTF ArbCom principles. Lightbreather ( talk) 22:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Karanacs: I think you missed the diff in my first paragraph. Since others seem to have missed it, too, I have added it to the numbered list. Lightbreather ( talk) 22:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Hell in a Bucket: I. Did. NOT. Lie. Please stop calling me a liar. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies: When I first proposed a volunteer Iban between myself and HIAB, back in December, on my talk page, you said:

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.

That is why I came here.

@ GorillaWarfare: Could you please comment? You were in that discussion, too, as was HIAB, though he did not agree to the proposal. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Salvio giuliano: The only other forum where I've asked for an Iban between myself and HIAB was my own talk page, in December, and HIAB was involved in the discussion. When he declined, I let it drop until his recent comments, which are against the GGTF ArbCom principles of Fair criticism, Making allegations against other editors, and Discussion of problems and issues.

@ Gaijin42: When I said what I said about WP:CHK, I meant that I expected that I would get to talk privately with a CU (which I tried to do, but it never happened) and explain exactly why I was editing logged out. I was stalked on- and off-wiki last year, so yes, I was editing logged out for privacy. I was busted ultimately because apparently IP editors aren't supposed to be involved in "discussions internal to the project." (I never found out - did any of the other dozen or so IP editors involved in that discussion get blocked for socking?) That only leaves the joe job after the fact, and that wasn't me. (HIAB seems to think that since my block was extended for it, that "proves" it was me, and for me to deny it is a lie.)

Maybe this will help. On 3 June 2010, HIAB was blocked for personal attacks. HIAB claimed, I'm blocked for being direct and open. [32] Is he a liar? Should I start following him around to various talk pages and tell people he's a liar? Lightbreather ( talk) 00:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

As for HIAB's opposition to my GGTF-related proposals, I don't object to his opposition - lot's of people are opposed to it - but I don't like the trash talk, which may be generally accepted on Wikipedia, but it's against the ArbCom GGTF principles, so I'd like him to knock it off. Lightbreather ( talk) 23:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Sitush: IBAN, which LB has consistently tried to obtain... There are only two other editors that I have sought an Iban for. The first we observed a successful, voluntary two-way ban for a while, but she quit editing months ago. The other, which I wanted as a one-way, was never enacted. This one, which I am volunteering for, is a two-way, and the only other forum where I've proposed it was my own talk page, where HIAB declined.

Also, would you describe let the grown up women stay where they should be, blatantly discriminative drivel, and I don't take shit like this serious as "valid criticism" (especially under the GGTF ArbCom principles)? Lightbreather ( talk) 00:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Sitush: You link to two admin-help requests for removal of content involving Eric Corbett in your own evidence Where? I don't see that here. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Sitush: Anne's criticism was on her page, in a discussion that I started with her, and its tone was respectful and polite, even if it expressed opposition to my proposal. Compare that to HIAB's comments above. Also, did you know that your last reply to me had at least a dozen direct uses of "you" or "your." Perhaps that helps your mission. However, what you do and what I do off-wiki have no place here. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Euryalus: Re your question, all of my evidence is related to the GGTF.

• Diffs 1-4 are about my efforts to create a space to help (I hope) close the gender gap.
• Diffs 7-9 were while I was blocked for editing while logged out on the GGTF ArbCom PD talk page (it was ruled an abuse of multiple accounts). It was Hell in a Bucket who outed information about me and called for an SPI on the ArbCom PD talk page." [33] (Info was later revdeled and the discussion habbed.)
• Diffs 5-6 were immediately after my block, when HIAB took me to ANI because I started an SPI against EChastain, [34] who I am sure formerly edited as Sue Rangell (and at least one admin agrees [35]).
• Diff 10 is from one of two SPIs that have been started against me since my original block: both started by IP editors, and both closed without action. Since my original block was a consequence of my participation in the GGTF ArbCom PD discussion, and since it was HIAB who called for it, I think this last "liar" comment of his is related. I am one of the few editors actively working to try to close the gender gap, and although HIAB may oppose me, I don't think it helps to close the gap when he insists on following around and besmirching me.

-- Lightbreather ( talk) 14:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Hell in a Bucket: "Vexatious" means "causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry." Which editor is more vexatious? The one who follows WP protocol re a conduct dispute, or the one who WP:HOUNDS? I am sorry if the former is more vexatious to those who must evaluate the complaint, but the hounding became vexatious enough for me that I am seeking a remedy. (Note that I cite policy while you cite essays.) Lightbreather ( talk) 16:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ EChastain: I didn't quote GorillaWarfare. Do you mean that I placed a confusing diff?

Also, with the exception of Karanacs and Hawkeye7, all of the editors who've given statements here were active between Jan 27 and Feb 2: You, TKOP, Gaijin, and Sitush at AE, ANI, and ARCA; HIAB at ARCA and SPI; me at AE, ARCA, and SPI. Lightbreather ( talk) 18:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

ping=anyone who cares: Personal info I deleted from my user page early on in my WP editing career because I realized how hostile this place is. I never dreamed that personal info that was on my page for a matter of a few weeks at the most would be sought out by someone on a mission at some future date to share with a group. Why Hell in a Bucket chose to point it out to a couple dozen people at an ArbCom? I'm past caring - I have since had it permanently revdeled, [36] - but I sure would like an Iban so he doesn't keep pestering me. Lightbreather ( talk) 01:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Re modus operandi of EChastain and HIAB: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

@ Euryalus: I came here rather than ANI for the reason I gave earlier. When I first proposed a volunteer Iban between myself and HIAB, back in December, on my talk page, Roger Davies advised: 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. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 13:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Courcelles, Euryalus, GorillaWarfare, Salvio giuliano, and Thryduulf: Between February 1, 2014, and January 31, 2015, HIAB started 13 discussions at ANI, and I started 12. If that is the measure, I'd say he is every bit as "vexatious" as I. I would be accept, albeit begrudgingly, being topic banned from administrative noticeboards, as Salvio has suggested, if HIAB is also topic banned from administrative noticeboards, although can we give the ban a length? Say six months? Lightbreather ( talk) 16:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies: Can you clarify? Do you propose that I would need to get permission to go to WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:NORN, WP:RSN, and so on? As I just suggested, I am open to being banned - say for six months - from ANI, as Salvio suggested, if HIAB is banned, too (based on the evidence that he used that forum at least as often as I). Lightbreather ( talk) 16:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this, but re-discovered it while counting up our activity at ANI in the past year, have all the arbitrators considered/remembered that HIAB was warned in the Banning Policy case last fall?

Hell in a Bucket is warned to refrain from edit warring and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric in the future. Further instances of similar misconduct may result in serious sanctions.

Now I will try to just watch the end of this unfold, unless an arbitrator pings me. I will be entertaining house guests for the next 24 to 36 hours. Lightbreather ( talk) 16:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies: I collected that info manually this a.m. My granddaughters are having lunch and then they'll nap. I'll be able to give you more info from the last six months then. Lightbreather ( talk) 21:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies: For the six months from 8/6/14 through 2/6/15 I count:

HIAB: ANI, 7; AE, 0; ARCA, 0; SPI, 13 - for a total of 20.

LB: ANI, 4; AE, 1; ARCA, 1; SPI, 2 - for a total of 8.

If I'm a "vexatious litigant" (and I don't buy that I am), then it appears to me that HIAB is also a "vexatious litigant."

May I ask, is it cool to be going to the arbitrators' talk pages to post the same appeal re a case here? Today, HIAB has posted the same appeal [43] on your talk page and the talk pages of @ DGG, Dougweller, Courcelles, Guerillero, AGK, Euryalus, and Thryduulf:.

I hardly think it matters; we're none of us likely to ignore the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

And can you clarify, isn't some of what he brought up in that appeal - references to off-wiki activity - forbidden in these processes? (Or am I mistaken?) -- Lightbreather ( talk) 22:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Karanacs: You say you went back to Sept., but you have two items from May 2014 listed for me. Did you mean to include those? Lightbreather ( talk) 23:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Doncram, Karanacs, NE Ent, and Sitush: Getting ready to call it a night, but since it was brought up in several places here, the result of the Kaffeekltach MfD was page kept, [44] and WMF Legal says it does not violate the non discrimination policy. [45] Lightbreather ( talk) 01:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Sitush: I included you in the ping because you linked to it in your comment here on Feb. 3. [46] Lightbreather ( talk) 02:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies: This has been dragging on for a while, and maybe I've missed or forgotten something, but where did I ignore specific advice about how to proceed?

@ Roger Davies: I am so sorry if I seemed to ignore you. I started this in good faith based on what you said on my talk page on 17 Dec 2014. [47] The advice you posted on 18 Dec was on my talk page, too, but it was in reply to Hell in a Bucket. [48] And the statement you made here on 2 Feb was in reply to Thryduulf and didn't ping me or include my name. [49] Honestly, if you had pinged me and said, "Lightbreather, ARCA is the wrong place for this, please take it to [board]," I would have done so. Lightbreather ( talk) 00:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hell in a Bucket (GGTF)

Any editor familiar with the Arbcom case GGTF knows that Lightbreather lied about socking and then evading her block using another sock and then lied again but begged everyone to believe her that she wasn't lying the second time although she was not honest the first time. I would note this is actually the first semi direct interaction I've had with her in some time and it was not even her but the inclusion of a SPI. I think this was my last comment other then this new SPI [ [50]] that had any involvement. I think we have an editor that can not under any circumstances deal with anyone that disagrees with her POV, which is what I said here [ [51]] with no suitable response. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 22:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Lightbreather as you seem to have forgot here is the evidence [ [52]]. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 22:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes we've already had this complaint [ [53]]. It hasn't changed. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 23:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Link 20 (not en.wiki) and as stated above she is upset I disagreed.
• Link 21 Delete as drivel or "talk nonsense."
• Link 22 Discussion with Ironholds explaining why I believe what I do. (not lightbreather)
• link 23 Still talking to Ironholds not Lightbreather
• Link 24 Asking that Lightbreather be stopped from harrassing a new user in contravention of WP:BITE with a second SPI although there was zero reason to do so. (on someone else's talk page no less)
• Link 25 is stating the same thing several admin and one former arb stated about honesty.
• Link 26 and 27 is a discussion regarding the use of WP:ROPE and not a problem except again it doesn't agree with LB preferred view.
• Link 28 a response to another editor who had stated concerns and I wanted to clarify again not with Lightbreather. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 23:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think total out of that there is one that is directly addressed to Lightbreather 00:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:Lightbreather, The best way to stop those descriptions is to quit acting in that manner. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 15:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• User:Thryduulf the evidence is in the SPI, at length. Lightbreather asks for diffs each time it's mentioned. The supporting diffs including endorsement byan admin and former arb [ [54]], another admin [ [55]], another admin endorsing the spi [ [56]], and another [ [57]] after seeing more diffs. Lightbreather did a great job putting it all together and you can tell that this is the result of considered rationales and not "aspersions" My best timeline I laid out here [ [58]] It's also important to note that the conversation on her MFD was in direct replies to concerns by Ironholds and the SPI, both had valid reasons to mention those things as they had direct relevance to the situation, ie a sock puppet investigation with a user with a history of evasion, and a discussion about deletion which is common at mfd's and not directed to or in conversation with Lightbreather. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 17:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• User:Euryalus I have done exactly what you just stated, I have avoided Lightbreather. I have commented on 2 SPI's opened regarding LB as it was relevant to that occasion, The other was commenting on a WMF violation in her userpage pledge group that is highly discriminatory. After being engaged by another editor I explained why I took the delete rationale. None of this engaged Lightbreather in anyway, I repeat I did not ping her, I mentioned her indirectly and stated a suspicion of another instance of puppetry or oppositoin research in a retort to that same user when discussing the issue further. Ironholds didn't break decorum and neither did I. I also do not wish to relitigate teh case either but I had to as again she accused me of aspersions and then again when arb User:Thryduulf stated TKP could be harassing her by not providing links. A child can see all she is doing with that is misdirecting the issue at hand and trying to make people see the picture she wants. This user is bludgeoning her perceived opponents with that arbcom case or at least trying very hard to. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 22:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• User:Lightbreather, I've sufficiently shown you have lied. There was an open SPI and it's routine when noting checkuser requests that a history of deception is there when getting that approved and it was approved. So there again as I mentioned before me not talking to you or having an interaction ban would not resolve the behaviors that you have done, not me, you. I didn't force you to sock and lie about it, I didn't start the SPI's. I commented at them once defending you and then when more compelling evidence came forward and seeing the wisdom of getting Darknipples and Felsec cleared of a cloud suggested it was good idea to checkuser. That's it, it was your reputation and not mine you sullied with your actions only you can take credit for that. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 23:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• User:Lightbreather, I don't need to besmirch you, as often is the case you did that yourself through deception, forum shoppiong and as stated by several here being vexatious in general. Heck if the committee thinks I'm the problem then I will sit back and eat my popcorn while you weave your path of destruction. I believe you are the perfect example of WP:COMPETENCE, it's clear you can't or won't understand why your behavior is problematic and you insist that everyone who disagrees is wrong and everyone that agrees is helpful, one day very very soon and it's already happening, everyone will be able to see the bull. It's always been your choice how to proceed, you can spend the small remaining good faith capital you have by making meaningless and trivial requests here and elsewhere or you can modify the message to something that is less problematic. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 15:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• User:Lightbreather you are again not telling the truth. Zero outing was ever done by me, if you'd like to cite the section I violated by all means. I used publicly provided info, provided by you to show that evidence. You outed yourself, you are again getting mad and upset at me for your actions. You're right this was temporarily revdel'd because as your modus operandi shows you are not forthcoming with the truth. User:PhilKnight reverted himself when he was made aware of the entire facts, you can see the conversation here [ [59]]. Before you get too wound up, please also see [ [60]] which can easily show that I oppose hiding inconvienant facts with most things and not just you. Also the attempts to invoke my block log is cute, the last time I was blocked was almost 5 years ago and for [ [61]] the word fuck, which if you haven't noticed I still say that word here so your relevance to this is a great strawman argument and a complete non sequitor, also please note in the section above where that same admin User:Sandstein is being taken to task for being block happy. The relevant quote is by Roger Davies 16:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC). The only person guilty of outing is ironically you when you outed Sue Rangell in your chase after Echaistan see [ [62]] and then the follow up warning from our current arb User:Euryalus found [ [63]] and yet more outing before that when you attempted to connect the IP's to everybody and their brother with zero evidence other then that they lived in England. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 22:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
• User:TParis, let's go ahead and say for one moment you are right about an Iban, and I'm 100 percent wrong about her honesty and forthrightness level. Can you reconcile [ [64]] and [ [65]]. I'm not sure how you can or will defend the integrity or honesty of an editor that is so willing to ignore any accountability whatsoever. Do you notice how she wails about privacy and harrassment and such and she is perfectly willing to maintain a website like this [ [66]]. You can call it preventative or what you want to but it's clear from the behaviors ongoing here with the continuing lies, misrepresentations and that User:Lightbreather is not acting openly and honestly. That's the basis of why I state what I state you are certainly free to disagree, I'm sure you probably do but the wider audience, arbs included are opening their eyes. I hope to see you in that crowd one day. The lies are in front of everyone, it's up to you if you look past the smoke and mirrors she is trying to pull. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 07:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• OMG [ [67]] User:Lightbreather lies again [ [68]], are we getting the picture? She's got about the integrity of policeman in mexico which is to say none. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 08:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• My above reference is an allusion to the fact that Lightbreather is telling a story but she isn't being accurate about that story. This is key because it is not an outright deception but it twists it to serve a purpose, which in itself is deceptive. In essence she is trying to make it propaganda and make it look certain ways while keeping at least slightly the truth but the difference is smaller then a Bill clinton definition.. I will admit though I am considering the idea of just letting this go through without more argument just so everyone can see that removing me from this issue doesn't solve the lying, misrepresentations, forum shopping and disruption. I didn't do those things, Lightbreather did and continues to do. To address another issue I talked with TParis because I have seen restraint from him as an admin (her who knows?) and I don't expect people to agree with me, I only expect honesty and integrity. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 02:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• User:Lightbreather are you stating it's wrong to email? I'm just curious because again the message you are sending about what you don't want to happen you are condoning by doing yourself unless it isn't in your cherry picked direction. A little consistency in the message would be nice. I don't see Echaistain or myself makign complaints here and I believ ethose you show other then one from the start of this side show are all old news. Are you making a point, is there a point and will there ever be a valid rationale behind it? Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 05:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• User:GorillaWarfare if you can seriously think that I am sexist you are about as connected to reality as Lightbreather is, which is to say not that much. I suppose if the committee wants to think I'm the problem good on them, you don't see HiaB operating off website attack pages, you don't see me lying, you don't see me substantially misrepresenting facts or creating discriminatory pages within wikipedia mainspace or canvass 33 separate pages to promote a cause but I can clearly see that I am obviously the problem, I have clearly forced Lightbreather to behave in those manners for all this time. The amount of incompetence in that one statement is outstanding, how many emails were you sent? Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 04:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:GorillaWarfare, I'm stunned you would read in my comment to that this was based on your gender which was mentioned nowhere or even alluded to, I'm judging your comment on it's merits and nothing more, I'm sorry you choose to see it from that light. I can show many comments where I support what Lightbreather is trying to accomplish but not the methods. I'd have hoped you would have seen those but because it doesn't fit the picture Lightbreather is painting I can understand why she wouldn't mention those. I would hold and expect an arb to a higher standard of research though. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 05:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Let me help you since it's clear you didn't and haven't researched this issue other then read things here. See [ [69]], [ [70]], [ [71]], [ [72]]. There's a bit more out there would you like me to find them, I have a few where I explicitly state women are equal and ridicule those who think they are superior? I would appreciate if you withdraw at least the sexism, I have many many faults sexism is not and has not ever neem ome of them. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 05:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:GorillaWarfare, what language am I allowed to use so it isn't considered sexist? I mean that seriously you object to me saying before you get too wound up[ [73]], or that the antics are cute, can you refer me to anything that anywhere that states those are sexist or even close to it. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 05:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:GorillaWarfare, see [ | I really do encourage you to do something else more productive because I think this will be a time-sink that will end up running you off the pedia..then no one wins, not you or the encyclopedia. The best revenge you can have against someone short sighted enough to think he's superior because he is man is be a better contributor and person] is that explicit enough for you? Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 05:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I guess if the words on the screen aren't enough I'm wasting my time. Thanks for making that crystal clear. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 06:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:GorillaWarfare, put your money where your mouth is (gender nuetral) if you really want to help the encyclopedia get better as you stated on TKOP, I would voluntarily accept an interaction ban with a smile on my face and pick flowers if the committee does what User:Salvio giuliano is suggesting in his oppose vote. User:Roger Davies on his page states you were acting in good faith and only trying to please everybody in arbcom fashion well here is the path...Lightbreather is a serious problem with forum shopping and administrative actions. Those are 75 percent of my beefs with her remove those and then remove me from the picture and boom almost insta-silence and one I'd be happy to hold because I know the encyclopedia isn't being damaged and at least you think I'm not damaging it either. Win-win. It is working with Tarc and so I see no reason it wouldn't work here Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 13:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• As I recall I haven't really asked for any sanctions on User:Lightbreather since Dec. If you want to base an Administrator board ban off of number of posts rather then the times (quite a few are stale) that's obviously nothing I can do about that. I think the problems get solved with an interaction ban(more for Lightbreather peace of mind IMO) and punishing me by removing me from process such as SPI where I do have some experience and turn across quite a few in new page patrol and ANI. I likewise would contest a topic ban as asked by User:Roger Davies what I thought. I am not in any way shape or form sexist. I have taken many many pains to try and show that I am not. Comments like Gorilla Warfares last night were pretty thin on context, I was very surprised to her that "wound up", "wail" or "cute" as sexist and then when I questioned this was met with open accusations of me saying she was just an incompetent women which I nowhere said, have never said in my life and will never say. I am then referred to NPA by Roger Davies and Callanec. Where's the same standard of respect by User:GorillaWarfare? I have taken pains to show with evidence, solid evidence and no misdirection (at least not intentionally) my position but many of the comments I made where misdirected. My involvement here didn't come because of my use of an admin noticeboard, it came because Lightbreather wanted to use a hammer and do as much permanent actions she could to accomplish her vision of sanctifying wikipedia. I am about as frustrated with this as everyone else so I'm not sure what digging up diffs for ANI reasons each time I've comment there will do any good. A few were from the old arb cases which are only tangentially related to this and the rationale of inflammatory language would not apply (other then minorly depending on how far you stretch credulity liar is counted.) which as anyone can tell I didn't make any comments stating cunt, queer, nigger or anything even close and even that comment was grossly twisted to something sexist when it was a guise for the language police. I think discrimination in all forms is wrong, let there be no doubt I resent those words and without at least something tangentially showing those phrases are sexist I would appreciate a withdrawal but frankly I'm not holding my breath. It appears that the urge Lightbreather is trying to show everyone is that if she can't be there by default I shouldn't be there but the conclusion doesn't follow in my opinion. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 23:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Roger Davies, User:Jehochman, and User:Dougweller double standards maybe just a little? Would you care to opine on these? I am curious on why I am apparently being singled out with blocking threats? To clarify since apparently Jehochman finds it [ beneath him] to look at this these are the edits Lightbreather did to "spam" her page during the month of January, I support a motion that largely deals with teh problem and it's worth a block warning and not one single word is said about this other then when I mention how I found out about this page.

• [ [74]
• [ [75]
• [ [76]
• [ [77]
• [ [78]
• [ [79]
• [ [80]
• [ [81]
• [ [82]
• [ [83]
• [ [84]
• [ [85]
• [ [86]
• [ [87]
• [ [88]
• [ [89]
• [ [90]
• [ [91]
• [ [92]
• [ [93]
• [ [94]
• [ [95]
• [ [96]
• [ [97]
• [ [98]
• [ [99]
• [ [100]
• [ [101]
• [ [102]
• [ [103]
• [ [104]
• [ [105]
• [ [106]
• [ [107]
• [ [108]
• [ [109]] Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 03:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:GorillaWarfare I want to revisit your sexism comment and ask you to consider a comment like this from a different view, one that you may not originally been willing to extend to me, maybe this will help. [ women are equal if they choose to be, no man can take that away from them]. I can dig up the diff if you want where I explain this a little further and I explained that my opposition to groups such as this is simalar Seperate but equal they historically do not work, not aristocracies, not for racists what makes you think sexism is going to find it's solution in men and women only groups. It's nonsense (drivel) to think that all of a sudden a person can make those failed processes work to solve the issue. Another reference to a choice is akin to Rosa Parks a fine and upstanding woman that choose to be equal to the whites and defy those artificial constructs. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 04:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• User:GorillaWarfare I'd like you to review this [ [110]], and this [ [111]]. I really think you are mistaken about being sexist in any way shape or form. I can continue findings diffs, would that help you retract your statement? Is further evidence needed? I'm sure there is more out there. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 05:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• In regards to 4.2 on the revised motion being discussed User:Lightbreather should not have to have the committee's approval if she is defending herself from an open thread. That's counter-productive and a large part of what her behavior that I don't like at this point would at that point be a weapon for others to use against her. If her behavior is problematic there at that time I'm sure the committee would know. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 06:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• User:Roger Davies what in our history other then with each other or gemder /language disputes would be a reason to disqualify us from SPI, BLP or ARB, 3O, etc. It effectively silences us from almost any discussion and not all of User:Lightbreather or my contributions are completely trash. I suggest rewording to sanctions on each other and gender related matters. I think if you look at my history especially in SPI with AFC and NPP is certainly going to hamper me from my main contribution here. If you want to run me off it's a great way to do it but I would urge you to narrow that ban to something related to that because most off my participation there is very constructive. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 02:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:Courcelles and User:Roger Davies, if you intend and succeed to ban me from any dispute related to ggtf (which I'm still trying to understand as my involvement has been damn near zero there) I would appreciate a finding of facts. It will not only help me understand what the committee found so inappropriate about my interactions as in my recollection I have said only positive things about women and have never denigrated or inferred they are somehow less then men so in an effort to preemptively not not make unintenional problematic edits. My interactions with Lightbreather has been problematic but I'd like to understand more about the issues being cited for this sanction. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 03:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• User:Guerillero I was unaware that saints here previously were topic banned from gun control, blocked for sockpuppetry, blocked for evasion or operate off web attack sites who knew? I understand you want to appoint her the Eric Corbett watchdog as well which would seem that you are saying she is the sole wielder of the sword of justice for arbcom for the Eric Corbett fiasco. Good to know. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 08:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TKOP

As HIAB points out, Lightbreather's participation in the GGTF case was to say the least, deceptive. She announces she's retired, then edit's as an IP, purportedly for privacy concerns. However when HIAB speculated that the IP was LB, she suddenly un-retires to participate in the case logged in. After that, LB announces (twice) that she can't participate further one evening because she is going out to dinner and then an ip editor seemingly holding the same views takes up the mantle. Sure, it could have been someone else trying to set her up, but that would have required the villain to have the opportunity (ready to pounce when LB was away) and the means to sock from a location LB was allegedly editing. That seems rather farfetched; Occam's Razor applies.

LB wishes an IB with HIAB. I suspect that she does not like her activities being scrutinized. Yet she continues to aggressively wage a campaign against Eric Corbett. One of the principles from GGTF is that Wikipedia is not a battleground. I think given the totality of LB's recent forum shopping against her perceived opponents, she is in violation of that principle. She needs to back away from trying to get editors sanctioned and focus on editing instead. Two kinds of pork ^Makin' _Bacon 09:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Thryduulf:Here is a brief timeline. LB announces her retirement, accompanied with a lot of noise on Wales talk page, but instead of going gently into the good night, she takes a last dig at Eric Corbett by filing evidence against him at the GGTF Arbitration page. Much like the rest of the evidence (but not all) filed by Eric's anti-fan club, it was rather flimsy and contrived -- but that's besides the point. What is the point is that Lightbreather did not have an edit to her name for a month to the day 10/14/14 through 11/14/14. Her first edit was to announce that she was making a special appearence to critizice a fellow editor and was now going to "resume" her retirement, which at least under her account last about 10 more days.

But she didn't taker her bat and ball and go home. HIAB (farily easily IIRC) sleuthed that 72.223.98.118 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) was LB. I'm not going to bother digging up the diffs for the he said/ip said/she said, but IRC (and correct me if I'm wrong people) LB denied being the ip for quite awhile, then finally owned up to it.

Now I know LB doesn't like being called a liar, and I'm fairly certain she wouldn't want to be called a hypocrite, but if it's not hypocritcal it is at the very least ironic that after socking for the better part of two weeks (and that is just the one we know about) LB took it upon herself to perform her own SPI investigation on the prolifigate number of socks on the Arbitration page. She has serious conerns at the number of ip editors and then decides to delve even further and add the ip's geolocation information.

However barely an hour after her she comments on the ip's, she claims I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs , which we now know of course to be false. I believe she is blocked by for socking shortly after this. After this, there is some information that LB wanted removed from one of the Arbcom pages and was obviously anguished over the matter.

Now because of this anguish she might be excused for saying I'm done for tonight, and I hope that the arbitrators and others involved in the GGTF ArbCom take these possible socks/meats seriously. I am off to dinner with hubby. and just in case no one heard the first time repeats her alibi Thanks, SlimVirgin. I am just out the door to dinner with my husband. If I can't get back on tonight, I will be back tomorrow. I will think about what you and others have written here. -- But less than an hour later 69.16.147.185 removes the text that LB was protesting about. Same location as the other IP and according to other's LB's location.

I said "perahps" because while it would be easy to brush off behavior made in a moment of pique , but it is hard to excuse when between those "hubby & dinner" comments was interspersed request for another editor to do some sock hunting because LB apparently is not happy that others "are commenting anonymously, without scrutiny, on the GGTF ArbCom". Which really takes the cake because that is precisely what LB was doing during her alleged retirement.

Now if everything I just said were true, and I were in LB's shoes, I wouldn't feel too good about it. I don't think anyone want's a pound of flesh from LB. But I do suspect they want to be able to trust her. There is no need to prostrate herself, but if LB want's everyone to agree to disagree about what happened, then she will rightfully own whatever resentment some may harbor. My unsolicited advice would be to rip off the band-aid and say "I screwed up" then no one can bother her anymore about the socking part. Two kinds of pork ^Makin' _Bacon 08:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Now some of the Arbs appear to be thinking they made a dog's dinner of this case. That you overlooked Lightbreather's behavior is unfortunate -- or perhaps you didn't. It is obvious to even an untrained eye that Arbcom is politics. This whole socking thing is just window dressing anyways. The 800 pound gorilla is some still won't get Eric Corbett out of their heads. Apparently the sanctions are working for him -- unless he is being goaded, which unfortunately seems all too easy. If Arbcom wants an easy fix, pass out some IB's between Eric against LB and KnowledgeKid77 for starters. You might be surprised how quiet this place gets if you try it. Two kinds of pork ^Makin' _Bacon 08:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies: neither were parties, but Lighbreather was certainly involved. A) she was the first to proffer evidence and then B) participated in the proposed decision discussion via ip because she didn't want her own conduct to be scrutinized. If you asked an outsider to read the discussion on the PD talk page first, and then examined the title of the case second they would wonder what this all has to do with with the GGTF. With the exception of some raving and self destructive behavior that eventually led to their downfall, most of the discussion focused on Eric Corbett, making it a de facto Eric Corbett Civility case. That she filed evidence against him, and then attacked him from behind the shield as an ip is really outrageous bordering on disgusting. The ARCA she filed above is indicative of someone who is hounding EC. Two kinds of pork ^Makin' _Bacon 18:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I rather doubt that a community discussion on an IB that LB has been seeking would come to any consensus and she knows that. Some have wondered here why Lightbreather filed a request here against HIAB. That's kind of like asking why did the stray cat that I fed milk a week ago keeps coming back to visit me everyday. Because it worked last time. Two kinds of pork ^Makin' _Bacon 18:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Lightbreather: I failed to see your message to me when I posted some diffs for Thryduulf. Above are the diffs, for the both of you to review. And please don't put words in my mouth. With regards to your honor and productivity, I never once questioned your productivity. But now that I look at it, it looks like you just questioned mine. Have a care to make sure your advice and accusations are not in conflict with each other in the future

@ TParis: -- Tom, while you have a point that HIAB could tone the rhetoric down by not throwing out "liar" at ever turn, LB is not some innocent victim here. I've seen several editors complain to admins, and non-admins alike about being "stalked" before. And the response is usually along the lines of "just following you to make sure policy is being followed". With our without the admin privileges, that is something that any editor is entitled to do, no? When does that behavior cross the line? Like anything else, when the community says so. If LB has such an issue with this, she should bring it to the community -- as it certainly doesn't belong here. Take away HIAB's ability to investigate possible dubious behavior only emboldens that behavior. It will only introduce more cries of harassment and forum shopping, admin shopping, arb shopping, Wales shopping, canvassing etc. and do nothing to cure the underlying problem here. Two kinds of pork ^Makin' _Bacon 08:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Tom, I wish I would see that argument (he's not the only one) presented when an editor feels harrased by an admin. But this is just another of Wikipedia's many double standards. Remember everyone's pal MilesMoney? He wasn't afforded such consideration, nor should he have been. Nor should LB, though her issues are but a ripple in a pond to the shitstorm that was MM. Two kinds of pork ^Makin' _Bacon 20:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Karanacs

I'm not involved in this battle, other than having commented at the MfD, etc. I'd like to point out that 5 of the diffs provided by Lightbreather are from December 2014, over 6 weeks ago. Three more are centered around Lightbreather's efforts to create WikiProject Women and the MFD for the Kaffeeklatsch in her user space and do not reference her directly. That leaves only ONE diff from the last two months that mentions Lightbreather indirectly (diff 23). If the committee does endorse an IBAN (and I personally don't see the necessity), please clarify whether or not this means that Hell in a Bucket is allowed to talk about Lightbreather's efforts to create WikiProject Women and the Kaffeeklatsch in her userspace. While I understand that she doesn't want him referring to her or about her, if he isn't allowed to comment on gender-related issues because LB brought them up or otherwise commented on them, then he's essentially topic-banned from discussions related to the gender gap, because she is one of the more active participants in that effort right now. Karanacs ( talk) 21:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Euryalus. Karanacs ( talk) 22:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I do find it quite disturbing that Lightbreather filed this request for an IBAN (on WP) the day after she began tweeting comments that HIAB had made on WP - comments that did not directly refer to Lightbreather (and ones which she used in her evidence section here). It gives the impression that she intends to comment on, or at least highlight, his posts off-wiki while depriving him of the opportunity to protest her actions or interpretation of his here on WP (where the comments were made). It's another in a line of actions that seems like poking the bear. Karanacs ( talk) 17:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies - I'm a numbers nerd, so I thought I'd compile some of the statistics you asked for. I tried to go back as far as Sep 1, 2014 (approx 5 months of data) on the main pages and looked at what types of edits were made. Diffs are to the first edit made in that thread. Karanacs ( talk) 22:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification per request of Lightbreather: I did include the ARCA requests for all of 2014 and 2015 (for both parties), not just September on. Hell in a Bucket did have other ARCA edits, but those were in 2010 and thus are stale. I did not do the same on other pages because there were many more edits and I got bored. I also did not check any pages but those mentioned here. Karanacs ( talk) 00:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

• Lightbreather:

1. initiated Amendment request: Interactions at GGTF [112] 1 Feb
2. commented at Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling [113] 1 Feb
3. initiated Gun Control amendment request [114] 19 May 2014
4. initiated Clarification request: Gun control#Gaijin42 (topic banned) [115] 6 May 2014

• Hell in a Bucket

1. commented in this request [116] 1 Feb 2015
2. Commented in Clarification request: Banning Policy (against banning Tarc) [117] 11 Nov 2014
3. initiated Clarification request: CASE/Sexology [118] 27 Sep 014

WP:AE

• Lightbreather

1. Statement against Eric Corbett and Cassianto [119] 28 Jan 2015
2. Initiated against Eric Corbett [120] 24 Jan 2015
3. statement against Mike Searson [121] 20 Jan 2015

• Hell in a Bucket

1. initiated against Neotarf [122] 26 Sep 2014

ANI

• Lightbreather

1. commented about Eric Corbett [123] 26 Jan 2015
2. commented - taking HIAB to task for calling her a liar [124] 18 Dec 2014
3. initiated - notice of RFC that had to be about Eric Corbett [125] 3 Oct 2014
4. commented - incivility and content contribution [126] 2 Oct 2014
5. initiated - against scalhotrod, [127] 22 Sep 2014, later accusing him of wikistalking [128] 25 Sep 2014; later asked for section to be closed because started an RFCU about Scalhotrod [129] 27 Sep 2014
6. commented - evidence against Mike Searson [130] 26 Sep 2014
7. seconded request for help with IP vandalism on GGTF [131] 19 Sep 2014

(Note, these threads included that she asked for or others have proposed interaction bans between her and Eric Corbett, Scalhotrod, Hell in a Bucket)

• Hell in a Bucket

1. commented in support of Cassianto [132] 29 Jan 2015
2. commented at block review for TheRedPenofDoom (defense of blockee) [133] 17 Jan 2015
3. initiated against LightBreather [134] 18 Dec 2014
4. initiated against Lightbreather [135] 4 Dec 2014
5. initiated against TParis over refactoring at Lightbreather's talk page [136] 1 Dec 2014
6. commented in thread about blueSalix and AFD (in defense) [137] 24 Nov 2014
7. initiated - needing someone to revdel his own mistake [138] 8 Nov 2014
8. commented - supported a blocking admin on a block on BengaliHindu [139] 26 Oct 2014
9. commented - defending Tarc [140] 26 Oct 2014
10. initiated - issue on SMH Records AFD [141] 18 Oct 2014
11. initiated - ban or block for Neotarf [142] 26 Sep 2014

AN

• Lightbreather

1. Support topic ban on Sue Rangell [143] 7 Aug 2014

• Hell in a Bucket

1. comment - general statement on blocking and conflicts [144] 24 Nov
2. Initiated - posted RFC on SPI Clerk Selection process [145] 17 Aug 2014

SPIs

• Lightbreather

1. initiated against North8000 [146] 1 Feb 2015
2. commented in one against darknipples [147] 24 Jan 2015
3. commented on one against her [148] 16 Jan 2015
4. initiated against Sue Rangell [149] 17 Dec 2014
5. commented in one against Jazzerino [150] 17 Dec 2014

• Hell in a Bucket

1. initiated one for Croonerman [151] 2 Feb 2015
2. commented on one against Lightbreather, saying didn't believe it was her [152] 16 Jan 2015
3. initiated against Pearljambandaid [153] 3 Dec 2014
4. commented on SPI for Sue Rangell/EChastain [154] 30 Nov 2014
5. initiated against Lightbreather [155] 28 Nov 2014
6. initiated against Italyo8629 [156] 26 Nov 2014
7. initiated against Pearljambandaid [157] 23 Nov 2014
8. initiated against Smith and Ken Dubai [158] 16 Nov 2014
9. initiated against Pearljambandaid [159] 8 Nov 2014
10. initiated against Ellapura [160] 8 Nov 2014
11. initiated against Smauritius [161] 28 Oct 2014
12. initiated against Smith and Ken Dubai [162] 26 Oct 2014

RFC:

• Lightbreather - Began RFC on Scalhotrod [163] 27 Sep 2014 (deleted as uncertified on 18 Nov)

Statement by Gaijin42

I delayed commenting here, because I want to keep my head down and improve my own reputation at being associated with controversial/drama areas, and my past differences with LB have largely been resolved, but as this keeps dragging on, I cannot help but comment.

LB, You may not have "lied", but at a minimum you strongly mislead. Sorry, not all diffs due to difficulty of hunting them up, but these edits certainly are intended to read as a denial. A denial that was untrue. you might have thought you meant to say "I used multiple accounts, but such use was not a violation of the policy", but that is not what you said. Both comments implied checkuser would find the IP not to be LB. When the discussion at hand was specifically accusing the IPs of being LB, these dissembling statements can accurately be described as lies. Own up to what you did, and let your future behavior repair your reputation.

• I read WP:CHK. If it allowed English Wikipedia editors to request checks on themselves I would do so. If someone would request one for me, I would welcome it. Not that my opinion will change the outcome. 72.223.98.118 10:39 am, 24 November 2014,
• [164] Who said "oppressed"? My use of an IP address is for a legitimate purpose: Privacy - with a capital "P" - but since a few here think I'm not participating in good faith, I'm reading up on maybe requesting a checkuser on myself. Especially if that get's the discussion back on the case and involved parties.

On the other hand, HIAB (and others) would do well to stop poking the bear, and to let things drop. LB screwed up. She has subsequently admitted to the screwup. (although her misdirection regarding "lie" here is not helpful) The repeated subsequent sock accusations have been on extremely thin evidence and certainly read as if trying to chase her off and comments like "once a liar always a liar" are not helpful. The clerks and CUs know how to look at past cases, and even if you want to remind them of some relevant facts, there are a lot less aggressive ways of doing so. Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Roger Davies clarification about your statement " Such a t-ban would not of course cover the Kaffeeklatsch‎ but for as long as it remained in user space the i-ban would" Do you mean that the Kaffeeklatsch is not inherently part of the GGTF and therefore would not automatically be covered, but the new if discussions in the new "broadly construed" tban happen there they would still be covered? Or that the kaffeeklatsch page would be an island immune to the tban? Either one seems problematic. Obvious reasons for the second, but for the first, the recent MFD as well as its purpose as a "trial baloon" for LB's wikiproject seem to tie it fairly intrinsically to the GGTF or discussions regarding the gap. I have no comment as to if LB should be tbanned, but if she is, I can't see how the kaffeeklatsch could serve any non-violating purpose. Gaijin42 ( talk) 02:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

As Salvio has suggested, Lightbreather is indeed a vexatious litigant and, as Gaijin has suggested, her response to the IP edits around the time of the GGTF ArbCom case certainly gave the impression that she was being at best economical with the truth. There is a fair amount of off-wiki stuff that might demonstrate a real concern regarding WP:NOTHERE on her part but this situation certainly is not helped when both parties repeatedly use events that occurred some time ago as the mainstay of their positions. That said, IBANs never work properly because they end up being lawyered to death and from this follows ...

... that there are things that I cannot say here but the gist is that an IBAN, which LB has consistently tried to obtain, would suit her well-publicised/self-admitted agenda far more than it would suit any agenda that HIAB might have. This IBAN demand is a pattern which is unfortunately developing in the gender-related/contributor-related sphere that has raised it head of late. Those who favour the GGTF purpose seem often to be keen to exact IBANs etc and it does seem that it would be a means of stifling even valid criticism, which the GGTF case explicitly said should be permitted. RegentsPark raised this point regarding the nefarious potential effect on my own talk page a while ago but it would be unwise for me to link to it without permission from the arbitrators because of my own IBAN situation, which could easily be gamed.

I think both are fairly combative contributors and that neither really do as much as they should in genuine article space (exclude article talk pages because they're mostly tendentious arenas in the context of their favoured topics of gender, gun control etc). I would encourage them to contribute more to articles directly and less to the more-heat-than-light nonsense. Even if that means moving away from their primary interests, which have enough other editors willing to wiki-die for the "cause" anyway

Anyone who wants diffs, feel free to specify what you want but please bear in mind my own restrictions and those of policy re: off-site stuff. - Sitush ( talk)

@ Lightbreather: I didn't say that you had always sought IBANs involving yourself but those that you refer to - and this request itself - are, I think, 100% more than I have ever tried to obtain. And, believe me, I spend most of my time in a very contentious subject area that is under discretionary sanctions. There are, of course, many off-wiki comments that you or someone else using your name have made that could be added to the mix, including referring to people (me, almost certainly) as "The Troll". I can't link to them and I am pretty sure that there is a lot more going on than appears in the archives of publicly accessible mailing lists.

Whatever, I think the pair of you should move on to other things far distant from the mess that is circling gender-related material and indeed gun control etc. I don't expect you to accept my opinion but I am entitled to it. Equally, I don't think an IBAN should be applied because, truth be told, it would favour one "side" by elimination and thus be both grossly unfair and contrary to the GGTF arbcom case decision that valid criticism should not be stifled. I find it interesting that you seem generally to be far more tolerant of criticism when it comes from self-identified women, eg: User_talk:Anne_Delong#Test_Kaffeeklatsch_area_for_women-only. You are on a mission, and missions on WP usually end up in tears, in my limited experience. - Sitush ( talk) 00:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

You link to two admin-help requests for removal of content involving Eric Corbett in your own evidence, which were responded to at the time and yet you still cannot let that go. That is a fairly trivial example of your vexatiousness/forum shopping but an example nonetheless. - Sitush ( talk) 00:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Lightbreather: my apologies - you are a participant in two sort-of related gender-gap discussions that are going on at the same time on this page. See your remarks re: Go Phightins and NE Ent in the section here. I think that I should withdraw now because things are only going to get messier and, yep, I have better things to do with my time. I knew before I started that you were not find a compromise through me or anyone else who disagrees with you, so perhaps even contributing here was a mistake. My apologies for that, too: I should have more sense that to engage in a hopeless cause. - Sitush ( talk) 01:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ SlimVirgin: there are a lot of assumptions in your appeal to the arbs, and a blatant suggestion that self-identified women should be cut a little more slack. That seems wrong to me and indeed is contrary to the outcome of the case, which (paraphrase) said that legitimate criticism should not be impeded. This is the core of the problem: some people do not like those who criticise them and seeking IBANs is a way to prevent the criticism. - Sitush ( talk) 01:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Lightbreather: I think you may be misunderstanding the term vexatious litigant, which has a meaning that perhaps goes beyond your dictionary definition of vexatious. I'm no lawyer but my understanding is that is refers to someone who repeatedly attempts to press a case, using similar evidence, even after their original presentation of the case has been rejected. There isn't much doubt that you have acted in this way in relation to various issues, most of which concern the gender gap farrago and your involvement in it. It might be argued that HiaB is being vexatious in their repetition of old arguments but, since it is you who brought the present two cases in front of this noticeboard, the onus is upon you to lead the way and HiaB is entitled to defend their position using whatever evidence is available. No doubt a lawyer will now tell me that I am wrong! - Sitush ( talk) 02:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Those arbs who are arguing that an IBAN would be A Good Thing now seem to be missing the point that it seems not to be within their remit to establish such a thing. ArbCom had its chance during the case and, although I was added as a late party, neither Lightbreather nor HIAB were parties. The entire case was a travesty - with its many twists, turns, almost total lack of clerking, obvious bias and ultimate retitling - and if it were not for the initial evidence from two people heavily involved in one aspect of it, the thing may never even have attracted any submissions beyond the serial procedural questioner, Robert McClenon. The fact is, this proposal, like so many efforts by the highly disruptive (vexatious etc) Lightbreather and the slightly-less disruptive HIAB, falls outside scope. If you can amend a case to include people who were not even party to it and who are not in breach of the DS then we might as well refer everything at ANI to this noticeboard instead. We all know that the Committee is overworked as it is: this is a dangerous creep of powers and the issue, if there is one, should be left to the community. - Sitush ( talk) 00:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@ GorillaWarfare: do you accept that LB is a vexatious litigant, regardless of whether you think others may be writing off her latest concerns because of that opinion? Do you need evidence of it? Isn't yet another ban, of whatever type, just adding another brick to the wall that restricts open discussion of gender-based issues and how best to move forward in reducing the gap? And did you discuss your proposal on the arb's private channels (mailing list, IRC, whatever it is) beforehand? Why do you think it is within scope? - Sitush ( talk) 06:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@ GorillaWarfare:, Ok, thanks. Since you answered no to all of the above, we're obviously in massive disagreement here. I think that I may compile a case challenging LB's vexatious behaviour, mostly relating to forum shopping, wikilawyering and perhaps even gaming etc on gender-related issues. Given that you think it is ok for this present issue to proceed here, I will beg leave to file it here rather than at ANI. I am aware of WP:POINT but she has been doing this sort of thing for long enough and unless there is a more equitable solution proposed below, one that better reflects what is actually going on, I really do think there is a case to answer. - Sitush ( talk) 08:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Lightbreather: absolutely no idea why you just pinged me. I don't think I have ever said that the Kaffeeklatsch thing did breach WMF policy (I can read) and I'd already effectively acknowledged the WMF Legal opinion in a note to someone else on your talk page. Don't drag me into it, please: I think it is a bad idea but I didn't comment at the MfD for a reason. - Sitush ( talk) 01:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies: regarding your 2nd draft, points 1 (b) and (c). As it stands, both parties would need to contact ArbCom regarding any such desire to involve themselves in DR forums etc. Is that deliberate? For example, it would necessitate LB asking permission of ArbCom for things relating to another of her particular interests, ie: gun control. Also, and I think someone may have raised this before, is it intended to be some sort of majority vote of ArbCom or would it be the case that a single arbitrator could allow/deny such a request? I've got the feeling this is going to add a shed-load of work for the arbs, who already have a lot to do. That said, I don't have any solutions either and I do appreciate the effort. - Sitush ( talk) 02:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Guerillero: yours seems like a truly remarkable statement. You seem to think that LB should have some sort of free pass because she is trying to revoke any sort of pass for Eric? Talk about doing things by proxy: if you have a problem with Eric etc (who is not even involved in this and has not been notified) then maybe try to sort it out yourself? Although now you have nailed your colours to that mast you may find it necessary to recuse in any future arb dealings that might even remotely relate to him. As for the seemingly casual throwing-in of the "sexist" word, well, my mind boggles. I must be missing something subtle here; in fact, I actually hope I am. - Sitush ( talk) 08:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by EChastain

Hell in a Buckets statement was made at a SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather. Do these sanctions apply everywhere, even when Lightbreather hasn't actually interacted there?

One comment was made on the talk page of Salvio giuliano. [165] Do these sanctions apply on all talk pages?

GorillaWarfare is quoted inaccurately. She actually posted: 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. [166]

EChastain ( talk) 00:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Gaijin42: the SPI's against Lightbreather are the result of her editing on gun control and have nothing to do with the editors here. EChastain ( talk) 01:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Salvio giuliano: This is the fourth litigation that Lightbreather has contributed a large amount of evidence to at ARCA in the last seven days, plus being active at SPI. I believe this is overboard and she is "vexatious litigant", using SPI's and filings here and elsewhere to get her way.

@ Lightbreather: per your comment above: I started an SPI against EChastain, who I am sure formerly edited as Sue Rangell. Please AGF and stop the personal attacks. Your SPI against me was closed. [167] Your vendetta against Sue Rangell is apparently based on this [168], resulting in your topic ban from gun control.

@ Salvio giuliano: Lightbreather never drops the stick. I've never edited anything to do with gun control. She currently has a SPI open accusing an ip and Faceless Enemy of being sockpuppets based on gun control edits. [169] To me her constant use of various forums against other editors fits civil POV pushing. She shouldn't be a one person civility patrol, requiring every edit to fit her definition of a "tone was respectful and polite". EChastain ( talk) 18:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• @ TParis: In the past you've supported Lightbreather's phony claims that I was a sock of Sue Rangell at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell/Archive See your comments at [170] You said "Per Hell in a Bucket's insistence that I find the exact edits, here are all the ones dealing with Carolmoorede and Lightbreather - I hope this settles the matter as there were plenty and easy to find: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. There are more, but I think I made my point." None of your diffs had anything to do with Lightbreather. So I'm glad that HiaB was forceful in getting you to show that you had no evidence. Lightbreather requested ds enforcement against Sue Rangell. [171] and failed. That may be why she harbors a grudge against Sue Rangell who hasn't edited since last August.

• @ Karanacs: I also find the tweeting you mention very disturbing.

• @ Roger Davies: @ Salvio giuliano: @ Euryalus: Lightbreather is skilled at concocting a plausible narrative that other editors buy into without really looking at what's going on. A good example of this is at Lightbreather's filing last July with her usual boatloads of diffs against Scalhotrod. [172] It was only after nearly two weeks and many comments from editors (and the usual kurfuffle that surrounds Lightbreather), that EdJohnson noticed that if someone was repeatedly removing edits (as Lightbreather was complaining), someone else with the opposite POV must be repeatedly putting them back (i.e. Lightbreather).( screen shot provided). End of story: both topic banned. This is why we need editors like Hell in a Bucket. EChastain ( talk) 22:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

*@ TParis: On what basis do you believe that? I consider that a personal attack. Or else you just can't go by evidence. EChastain ( talk)

*@ TParis: I was not trying to bait you. I'm not Lightbreather. I'm just really surprised that you still think that based on zero evidence. Why do you think I am? EChastain ( talk) 22:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

*@ TParis: I don't care one wit about an Iban. I brought it up because Lightbreather brough it up in her comments above. "I started an SPI against EChastain,[34] who I am sure formerly edited as Sue Rangell (and at least one admin agrees[35])." So you are that one admin? EChastain ( talk) 22:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

*@ TParis: Now that I've seen your edit summary: "Ahh, so the purpose of your remark was to bait me into saying I still believe it so then you could call it a personal attack? I see. I hope everyone takes note of what just happened", I'm wondering what you are trying to do. What are you trying to do? EChastain ( talk) 23:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• @ Euryalus: The Sue Rangell SPI was not part of the GGTF. That Lightbreather and TParis say it is doesn't make it so. This is a great example of how Lightbreather manages to continue her vendetta against Sue Rangell, regardless of the venue. Sue Rangell was thought to be an enemy by Lightbreather. through their interactions regarding gun control. It has nothing to do with GGTF, although it does show that Lightbreather behaves viciously against women that she sees as her enemy, gender not withstanding. She knows I am a woman This makes a mockery of her desire for a "safe place for women". Lightbreather doesn't want to use ANI, as her use of that forum is now too public.

• @ Roger Davies: @ Salvio giuliano: @ Euryalus: I regret that I responded to TParis regarding his accusations that I am Sue Rangell and have struck out those remarks. He has stated that he is responding to an email request by Lightbreather This is Lightbreather's current modus operandi now that she is aware that others see her on wiki behavior in places as ANI. Her use of the Twitter account is disturbing. I urge you and other arbs to see this as part of a focused pattern, exemplified by her success in getting Eric Corbett sanctioned. [173] She attempted again by supporting a filing by Rationalobserver three days later. [174] Her current comments about him at Requests/Clarification and Amendment [175] continue her targeting of Eric Corbett. I think she has an agenda to target editors who point out her faults. I am apparently on that list, in the guise of Sue Rangell. I don't know if she actually thinks I'm Sue Rangell, or that is just a means of silencing me. I sense a "chill", where editors now are fearful of getting involved in criticising her. Please don't let this continue. This forum is obscure and not a very public place. It is being abused. EChastain ( talk) 00:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• @ SlimVirgin: I am a woman. I don't think that your suggestion is a good one since in this filing, Lightbreather accused me of being a sock of Sue Randell, despite no evidence. She knows I'm a woman and Sue Rangell is a woman that Lightbreather tried unsuccessfully to sanction over gun control. Sue Rangell was driven away from wikipedia. (I provided some evidence above and can supply more.) To me this makes a farce of Lightbreather's request. Hell in a Bucket goes by evidence. We need this. Lightbreather supporter TParis does not. He was recruited by her through email. EChastain ( talk) 01:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• @ Lightbreather: Regarding the diffs you just added without signing (which is sneaky) [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181], does this mean that because I was open about sending email and you aren't, that this is my bad? EChastain ( talk) 01:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@ TParis: wow, you pinged me one minute after my comment to Lightbreather. I'm impressed!. I can see that one of her links goes back to December and has nothing to due with this. And another doesn't even involve me at all. Do you want me to go through all of them? Should I tell SlimVirgin that you're hassling a women, i.e. me? Also, Lightbreather is making changes to her evidence without signing. That's not right. EChastain ( talk)

Yes TParis, after the fact you revealed you were emailed. But how many emails did Lightbreather send out? I'm sure you're not the only one who got an email. Did SlimVirgin? How many others did? How come GorillaWarefare and others who Lightbreather pinged didn't respond. This is all very underhanded. And Lightbreather doesn't leave edit summaries. She isn't open and transparent. That puts those of us who are at a disadvantage. My comments must be threatening to Lightbreather, if you feel that you must target me in such a way. EChastain ( talk) 02:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Lightbreather: You're continuing to taper with evidence already presented without signing. Do you know that's wrong? EChastain ( talk) 02:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Karanacs: Regarding the request by Roger Davies for data. This was left out:

Lightbreather at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

• [182] initiated 24 January 2015 by Lightbreather, resulting in a 48 hour block of Eric Corbett

• Eric Corbett (2), initiated by Rationalobserver [183], long comment by LB on 28 January 2015 [184]. Case closed and deleted shortly after.

Roger Davies Karanacs requested that I add these here. EChastain ( talk) 19:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Roger Davies: Lightbreather needs to be accountable for the false SPI's she files and not just the two against me. Just now her filing agains Faceless Enemy was closed because of unconvincing evidence. [185] It's very upsetting to be accused this way, and as Faceless Enemy says, this SPI seems to be made in bad faith. EChastain ( talk)

Statement by Hawkeye7

I don't follow Euryalus's point that an i-ban would not cover interactions outside en-WP. Per WP:IBAN: they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. In the past ArbCom has held this to include interaction elsewhere. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 08:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by TParis

The evidence that Hell in a Bucket (as well as Lightbreather) has personalized this dispute can be seen in this diff. It's one thing to say that Lightbreather has lied, and to say she has been a liar in the past, however, suggesting that she will always be a liar in the future unnecessarily personalizes the dispute. Hell in a Bucket can say that she has lied in the past, he can provide diffs to support his accusation. What he cannot do is supply diffs to prove she will lie in the future. Thusly, any accusations of future behavior fails WP:NPA. Arbcom should take note of the subtilties in this case because I believe what I am demonstrating is that fine lines are being played in an effort to stir Lightbreather into a frenzy and then use her (over?)reactions to discredit her.

If fairness or justice are your reasons not to consider an interaction ban, perhaps the idea that HIAB hasn't "earned" it, then I implore you to remember that we are here to be preventative and not punitive. Waiting until HIAB "deserves" it is punitive. Separating them now is preventative. Clearly, these two cannot get along and seperating them does Wikipedia nothing but good. There are no down sides at all to an IBAN between these two. These are plenty of downsides to not IBANing them. ANI threads, drama, accusations of sexism, Arbcom enforcement requests, etc, etc. Let's just separate them and be done with it, please.--v/r - T P 06:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Meant to add - I was requested via email by Lightbreather to make a comment and she agreed that I would make that clear in my statement. I forgot to add it so I am mentioning this postscript.--v/r - T P 06:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• @TKOP: HIAB is not the only person who can "investigate" Lightbreather. If he considers himself the Sole Wielder of the Almighty Sword of the Defender of Wikipedia (SWASDW) then there is a serious issue involving him. If he doesn't consider himself the SWASDW then there should be no opposition to letting someone else step in, and there are plenty of folks who know Lightbreather by now to do so. Regarding Lightbreather, she can testify to it herself but I've been less than entirely complimentry and supportive. I've given her as much criticism as I've given HIAB. Hers has probably just been more private because she and I often email each other. But I don't think she considers me an ally and I don't think HIAB considers me an ally either. My only interest in this dispute is that Wikipedia's time is being wasted and the rest of the community would be served by an IBAN between these two. Outside of this dispute, I consider both to be constructive editors.--v/r - T P 17:42, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• @HIAB: What lie are you pointing to in this comment? She appears to be directly quoting you here. It looks like a word for word quote. Are you saying that you do not own the account on Meta Wikimedia?--v/r - T P 17:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• @ Karanacs: I'm confused, you said that the comment do not directly refer to Lightbreather? Are you aware that the comments are being made in response to a proposal that Lightbreather herself put forward on meta? They were a direct response to her proposal.--v/r - T P 18:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
• @ EChastain: I didn't just support Lightbreather's accusation, I believe them myself. I have no doubt in my mind that you are Sue. I've respectfully stayed away from the issue since the SPI went against me. Clearly HIAB feels confident enough in my judgement to criticize me and continue discussing things with me and I believe I've respected his opinion by backing off the subject. He hasn't changed my mind, but he has demonstrated that I don't have enough proof to convince others. Fair enough on him. What is your point in bringing it up? Are you trying to get me to say that you are Sue to discredit me? I'm not sure that sort of shallow attempt will make any sort of difference here. Are you trying to say I have a grudge against HIAB? I'm not sure HIAB believes I have a grudge against them or else they wouldn't be open to talking to me so often. I'd be very interested to know the point you want to make by bringing the issue up because at the moment I don't see the relevance here. I haven't even mentioned you here or on Wiki since the SPI. Are you asking for an IBAN between you and me? You can absolutely have one, it doesn't matter one lick to me.--v/r - T P 22:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Ahh, so the purpose of your remark was to bait me into saying I still believe it so then you could call it a personal attack? I see. I hope everyone takes note of what just happened.--v/r - T P 22:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • EChastain - Thank you for the four notifications that you sent me. I'm well aware that you've replied to me multiple times. I think we've moved past anything the Arbs would fine relevant and I know from prior cases that they feel the back-and-forth is unhelpful. You brought it up, I've said my piece on the matter, you've responded, I've moved on. Please stop pinging me for every thought you have about me. Have a good day.--v/r - T P 23:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • EChastain - Two points. #1) HIAB said that Lightbreather lied. However, Lightbreather's comment is supported here. Is this the evidence you are talking about? #2) You outright state in this comment that you were open about emailing HIAB while Lightbreather was not. However, this comment by me only two minutes after my first comment here specifically states that I was asked to make a comment and it was with the agreement and understanding that we would be open that I was asked to make it via email. So, I'm confused about your assertion that my being here was not open. Could you clarify your distinction between your behavior and Lightbreathers and explain how the negative portrayal of her behavior that you've expressed does not also apply to you using evidence - and please explain the contradictory evidence I have just provided.--v/r - T P 01:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @ EChastain: Both of those are in there already. Karanacs did a great job and paid attention to detail.--v/r - T P 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• @ SlimVirgin: Care to opine?--v/r - T P 02:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• @ Roger Davies: This cannot be taken on the surface without some sort of real analysis to get into the finer details. But it gives some cursory ideas into the answer to your question.--v/r - T P 21:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• @ Karanacs: Thank you for your investigation. I think your evidence shows that LB is no more "vex-whatever" than HIAB. I think the Arbs who have described her as such either should swallow a bit of their pride and offer her an apology for their assumptions without evidence or, if they want to take the easy way out with their pride intact, they should describe HIAB under similar terms and remedies.--v/r - T P 23:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

While no one would breath a bigger sigh of relief than I, if Lightbreather and HellInABucket were to leave each other alone, I don't think this is a matter for this page.

Considering an Iban here would be an end-run around the normal processes, effectively making "Clarifications and Amendments" a supervening version of AN/I. Indeed it has been used in this way before, but in custom does not hallow such usage, rather it damns those who allow it.

All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 19:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

Statement by SlimVirgin

I would like to ask the committee to consider this request within the context of trying to close the gender gap on Wikipedia. One of the many issues believed to deter women from editing is that they can't stop particular people from interacting with them. The only option we offer is a public process such as this one, where they're expected to present diffs about the person they prefer not to engage with. If, despite putting themselves through that, an IBAN won't be granted even when there's no compelling reason to decline it, we're effectively saying that we're not willing to solve that part of the gender-gap problem. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:10, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Doncram

This would go away as an issue if ARBCOM would here make a sensible declaration establishing a basic right for semi-private clubs to operate as WikiProjects, for advancement of wikipedia in any topic area, where members can define their own membership requirements or admissions processes, and where members can exclude participation of non-members (e.g. to allow a all-women task force to operate without interruption). It would be semi-private in that what the WikiProject does is visible. This could lead to some wikiprojects splintering, e.g. a new GGTF being formed with possibly all-women membership, leaving the existing GGTF behind, which would not be all bad IMO. I've seen mention of an all-women internet forum that works well having a self-declaration of being female as a requirement. Allowing WikiProjects to be semi-private clubs could lead to me, or you, being excluded from some groups that we might prefer to belong to, but it would be better overall. It would be more like human groups operate in real life; they don't have to tolerate bullying or any other intolerable behavior indefinitely.

And, it is embarrassing to be an editor/member of Wikipedia, with all this going on. GGTF's media list is humbling. Sue Gardner's 2011 blog still applies. Anita Borg's "How to Edit Wikipedia" is meant to give advice to women editors, and is good advice, but it is humiliating to me to be part of this place, where the good advice includes "However, if the edit summary uses “you” or “your” aggressively...or obvious insults (often in the form of questions such as, “Are you kidding me?”), it is time to disengage and decide what to do next." And where it's useful to warn prospective editors to "Beware editors who only want to talk about content; who feel that civility is not a problem on Wikipedia; who dismiss other editors or tell others to ignore problems; and who constantly derail discussions. GGTF scoffers often ask for evidence that there really is a gender gap on Wikipedia, or that people (especially women) have been driven off by the hostile editing environment." I am pretty ashamed of a lot about this place, and can't recommend joining here, because I'd have to give stronger caveats than Anita Borg gives, and what I could say would just be too negative for me to assert to any friend that positives reasons for participating balanced out.

Males imposing themselves in the GGTF space are embarrassing, whether they are bumbling in well-intentionally or whether they are just meanly imposing themselves to derail discussions. Some men might be trying to "help" the poor women, patronizingly. I am a man; is that my motive in commenting here? Will I be heard better because I am a man? The Vintage Feminist and Lightbreather's pithy comments on having a private space are well-put. Allow there to be an effing table. Corporations and universities do allow private-like clubs for good purposes. Bores imposing themselves are told to knock it off, or they will be fired or expelled.

ARBCOM should just now declare this. Think of U.S. supreme court case Marshall v. Madison in which the court chose to assume an obviously needed authority not previously established. Or other cases declaring various basic human rights. -- do ncr am 02:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. To be clear, I am not saying either Lightbreather or Hellinabucket is more or less at fault about whatever, recently or previously in this case titled "interactions at GGTF". I think it doesn't matter. My point is that ARBCOM can/should get out of the business of regulating interactions within interest club areas of Wikipedia, and let the clubs do it themselves, by suitable membership requirements and processes. A new GGTF could choose to include L or H or neither, or conditionally include both with requirement that they behave nicely or that they do not interact at all, either just within the GGTF group or everywhere, with whatever simple or complicated justice system they wish to invent. Adults present are perfectly capable of setting up rules of order and running their own justice system processes. It also can be difficult for many groups to take on responsibility to regulate the behavior of their members and of interruptors from afar; it is not a fun process for a group of persons who just share an interest in a topic area, to take on the tasks of defining good vs. bad behavior, of setting exclusive membership requirements, and of creating/running unpleasant processes to address confrontations, bluntly. Or to define more subtle mechanisms that work well enough. But it can be worth it, sometimes, to invest in that. Let Wikiprojects do it, since Wikipedia as a whole is failing in doing it well. In my opinion Wikiprojects here are fundamentally flawed in that they cannot limit membership, and that is a contributing reason for most Wikiprojects fading away. In my opinion some Wikiprojects have done better than others by informally enforcing membership requirements, to their benefit, and to the betterment of their topical areas in Wikipedia, e.g. by successfully encouraging incompatible "outsiders" to depart, nicely enough, or by promoting "insiders" by an election process that works (wp:MILHISTORY). And ARBCOM, from far away, cannot do better than allowing small groups of people to come to their own arrangements. The evidence can't be presented fully, and ARBCOM can't understand the evidence, often, and it isn't necessary if ARBCOM would get out of this business. -- do ncr am 03:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent, I wasn't aware of Lightbreather's "women only" User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch that you mention; but I think it is nonsense to assert that "is clearly against WMF's nondiscrimation policy". All sorts of minority interest groups operate within schools and corporations that are obviously committed to nondiscrimination. I did understand L was interested in having private space(s), and I believe that explicitly allowing them would tend to diminish the need for ARBCOM to regulate interactions. It sure would be nice if more spaces in Wikipedia had simple nice conduct rules like that one does. It's a start! (Sorry if this is a discussion-like reply which you speak against.) -- do ncr am 03:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I was unaware of a lot more, e.g. huge MFD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch. My point still is that ARBCOM could help by clearly approving private club spaces, whether or not there is such a community discussion going on, and ARBCOM could indicate it wishes to get out of business of regulating interactions where local groups can do it better. I guess ARBCOM can regulate membership at the level of English Wikipedia-wide boundary, but I think it should try to back off on interfering within smaller local clubs. And not let itself be played by those who want to interfere/disrupt the clubs. -- do ncr am 07:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Euryalus: Thanks for acknowledging, let me interpret that as establishing Arbcom is aware of the issue of semi-private club spaces.

Note new interaction between these two users (now including this 1st, and this 2nd, out of 9 comments so far by Hellinabucket at the MFD, all effectively interactions with Lightbreather, as comments on Lightbreather's user space semi-private club) suggests that Arbcom's consideration of this specific matter is relevant. Per Gruban's comment below to you speaking against needless queuing of issues, I suggest that Arbcom should indeed try to lead on this issue (and discuss and decide itself on the existence of semi-private club spaces). There's enough said in the MFD already for you to be pretty well informed about community views, already. I suggest a motion: "We find that one issue between these 2 editors is disagreement over whether a women-only discussion space can exist in Wikipedia. Based on community discussion so far at MFD, and accepted practice that users can restrict others from commenting on their own Talk pages, a) we find that it is at most a small extension to clarify that Lightbreather can restrict participation in a women-only forum in her User space (not just her own Talk page) and b) we at least temporarily endorse that women-only forum as being okay." Or just say that ARBCOM sees no obvious problem so far. It is understood that ARBCOM rulings can be changed later, and ARBCOM's views could be changed by further future community discussion, but resolving something like this would lead on the issue, for a change. And clarity on the club space would take away one topic of disagreement between these two, and the club space itself will reduce interaction between these two (I assume LB will participate there and Hiab will not). -- do ncr am 21:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

Decorum

I went to WP:ARCA and an WP:ANI broke out.

In the big scary pink box atop this page it claims:

"This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive."

The edit history [186] shows a whole lotta incremental and not very much (any) clerking. Nothing breeds contempt for an institution than drawing a line in the sand which you're unwilling to back up.

Rehashing closed SPI's, regardless of the outcome, should not be tolerated. There's no doubt, due to the technical limitations and WMF privacy policy, there are false positives and false negatives. For the sake of community cohesiveness, we need to be mature about this and accept closure.

Finally, comment on the content, not on the contributor, is almost always good advice, it certainly applies to prior incarnations of the committee. Motions to address shortcomings which have become apparent are worthwhile, snarky made a mess comments are not.

Request at hand

Short version

Dismiss with prejudice; the filing party has provided no evidence they've attempted to use community processes to resolve this; don't reward behavior you don't want repeated.

Longer version

While in some abstract point of view Lightbreather has good intentions, there's no doubt her overly aggressive approach is mildly disruptive. For example, her admin-shopping [187] an already answered request to censor Eric Corbett's comments on WP:WER. Or, rather than collegially joining a gender neutral conversation in progress, attempting to steer into GGTF politics how many women have been involved in these discussions? . The answer, incidentally is, I don't know because I generally don't know the gender of other Wikipedians; most preferences are set to "he/she," and I rarely check -- what difference does it make to how I interact with them??

That said, this concept the Hell in a Bucket must not be IBANed so they can "scrutinize" Lightbreather's edits is silly; her engagement style is not subtle and requires no sleuthing. Wikipedia would be better off if HIAB found something else to worry about. The reason not to impose an IBAN is the evidence to date -- with regards to these two editors specifically and IBANs in general -- shows that rather than providing an avenue to deescalate the situation, it would be a source of conflict over perceived violations by the other party.

Yes, Lightbreather is doing some counterproductive things, such as the "women only" User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch in her user space which is clearly against WMF's nondiscrimation policy -- so what? As almost no one is actually editing it [188], it's a harmless violation that is best ignored per path of least drama. Or her hypocrisy in complaining about HIAB going off page [189] while concurrently canvassing TParis via email. To date, I'm not seeing any evidence of disruption to anything important (mainspace) nor egregious personal attacks on editors, so at this point patience is best; she'll either begin to figure out to work with the community or she'll annoy enough people often enough per Wikipedia:First_Law she'll get site banned (via WP:AN or arbcom related venue). Hopefully it's the former; obviously we need as many editors (regardless of gender) as we can get. NE Ent 03:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by GRuban

The presented evidence on one side seems to boil down to: "Lightbreather and Hell in a Bucket can't get along." The presented evidence on the other side seems to boil down to: "Lightbreather is a big meany." The second doesn't seem to contradict the first. Therefore, per SlimVirgin and DGG, I recommend endorsing the request.

Assuming the community plans to allow Lightbreather to continue editing - and I don't see anything of the severity level as to argue for an indefinite ban - then clearly we don't want her to continue to interact with Hell in a Bucket, since that interaction seems to consist mostly of harassment. -- GRuban ( talk) 20:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Euryalus: Yes, I can see an argument that this isn't really part of the GGTF arbitration; but it is arguable (both have certainly been participants in a few of the GGTF arguments), and, well, in the end, I have to admit the difference doesn't really bother me all that much. Maybe it's because I'm not a clerk or admin, but I still have hopes that we're not like the legendary bureaucracy where you have to stand in one queue for a long time, only to be told at the end that this was actually the wrong queue and you instead need to stand in that completely different queue, except, sorry, it's closing time, so you'll have to come back tomorrow, except, tomorrow is a legal holiday, and you'll have to come back Wednesday, except the clerk that handles that form is on vacation then, and their replacement is sick with the flu, and... We have here a noticeable number of experienced admins that can enact the interaction ban, and, apparently, enough that agree that it is a good idea. If you really think the distinction is important enough, then it can be enacted with the notice "This is not, technically, part of the GGTF arbcom case"; I don't think it should matter that much. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Dank

To the extent this is a case about gender gap issues, I think SlimVirgin nails it above (with one slight tweak: I'd replace the first "they" with "users"). 12:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@No one in particular, regarding the objection that it's not Arbcom's job to do anything about the gender gap: yes and no. I know people who stage protest marches for various causes from time to time, and a recurring problem is that no matter what they're marching for, people will show up and try to make it all about their own cause. So, in any context where we're trying to deal with a conflict between two people, it's not helpful to let the discussion get hijacked by any cause. OTOH, if Wikipedia appears to be a place where it's rarely possible to get help if someone is stalking your edits and doggedly engaging you (and it does appear that way to a lot of people), then it would be more efficient to deal with that problem than to ignore it and instead deal piecemeal with the hundreds of disputes that result from not looking at the root cause. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Capeo

@ GorillaWarfare: So unfounded claims of sexism, snark and an outright personal attack is the level of decorum expected of Arbs these days? With the link to GeekFeminism you’re basically calling HiaB a Concern Troll and claiming his advice was given with nefarious motive. If you actually look at HiaB’s history you’d find this kind of advice giving is the norm (no matter the gender of the recipient) as is genuine efforts to defuse situations. You’ll also find when those efforts fail HaiB may end up, by his own admission, being hotheaded about it and not it let it go before he should which can even lead to exacerbating the issue. That said, impugning his motives is simply uncalled for and not supported by the evidence presented. In fact, as many have noted, the evidence shows LB often tries to get sanctions on those who disagree with or criticize her or, in this case, point out her lying during the GGTF case and her over the top, tit for tat sock hunt after getting caught herself. This kind of retributive behavior from LB has happened before when she accused a user of following her to the GGTF, quit the GGTF supposedly due to that user’s participation, and then immediately joined the project where that user was most active. Certainly not the behavior of somebody who is actively trying to avoid another user. It seems you’re ignoring the history of both users who are the subject of this request, both the good and the ill from each of them. There are no angels here and maybe an Iban is warranted but I see no evidence for implying one of the subjects is a troll nor how that could possibly help anything.

@ SlimVirgin: I’m not exactly sure what you’re suggesting. For one it’s not in the remit of ArbCom to actively do anything about the gender gap and the only context they should be viewing anything in is policy. More importantly, are you suggesting that any user who professes to being a woman should simply be able to ask for and receive an Iban when they’re criticized or their past activity is brought up? Or, worse in my view, that this shouldn’t even have to happen in front of the community? Surely you realize that flies in the face of everything Wikipedia professes to be and would be abused to no end. There’s seems to be an assumption that any woman asking for Iban is clearly in the right consensus be damned. I’m sure this can’t be what you’re suggesting but I can’t really parse anything else from your statement. Capeo ( talk) 16:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist (2)

I think loose monitoring is as inadequate as an iban alone; more "robust" remedies are needed here to address the underlying issues. The forum-shopping and vexatious conduct has understandably provoked some of the responses I've reviewed. Consequently, even I can't help but wonder whether any gaps are being increased rather than "addressed" if even one of the two editors is allowed to continue to participate in the topic, let alone interact with each other. That's the view I came to after reviewing the commentary above and on this page, together with several of the diffs. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 17:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

To add two points to what I've said, (1) I don't think HIAB's participation in dispute resolution warrants a restriction as such; and (2) dispute resolution does traditionally include content dispute resolution, so it might be better to specify something like "conduct-based dispute resolution". Ncmvocalist ( talk) 03:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Statement from Harry Mitchell

@ Guerillero: Bollocks. I'm not sure why Eric Corbett is being dragged into this (apart from the fact that he's yet another person to whom Lightbreather seems to have taken a dislike—I haven't been keeping score, but I've seen these names on my watchlist enough to get the impression that that's rather a long list). As far as I'm aware, there have been two recent AE requests against EC, the first of which resulted in a block for the mere mention of the GGTF (which spawned a lengthy and useless ARCA request of its own) and the second was closed as stale because the edit was a week old at the time of reporting. The latter was filed by Gamaliel, not Lightbreather. There is no problem with "admins actually enforcing the sanctions". Unless you're telling me that there are lots of violations going unreported (I don't follow EC's edits generally so I don't know), in which case how are admins supposed to deal with violations that aren't reported? Or that there are other enforcement requests that I'm unaware of where obvious violations of his restrictions were reported be not acted on, which seems unlikely to me because I've been closely monitoring AE for five years.

I've thus far refrained from commenting on this mess, but from where I stand we have a petty feud between two editors. It boils down to a few diffs of remarks that wouldn't be actionable on their own but which, taken together, suggest that the two of them need to forget each other for the good of the project. An interaction ban, if one were necessary, could have been done at AE. The rest of this is just a waste of bandwith generated partly by LB's poor choice of venue and partly by arbs talking past each other. The gender of either party is absolutely irrelevant, and Wikipedia would be a much nicer place if this politicisation of gender would stop. We're here to build an encyclopaedia—not bicker like children in the projectspace, not conduct political campaigns against each other, and not for anything else that does not contribute to the encyclopaedia.

Arbs, please close this nonsense. If you insist on talking past each other and going round in circles, defer it to AE, which may not be perfect, but is at least capable of taking action and of making an objective decision based on the facts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved Giano

GorillaWarfare says on this page (05:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)): "The rest of the Committee can outvote me, if I am indeed an incompetent woman myself." What a sexist, vile, blackmailing comment. In other words she's saying: "agree with me, or you are all misogynists." I would like to know, Where is this stupidity all going to end?

This whole subject of gender and those editors seemingly obsessed with it is descending into a farce. It appears that any man, who the "wimmin" don't like is a legitimate target - so we see Eric Corbett needlessly dragged into the page - who next one wonders? It's been pointed out to me by email that an Arb, Gorilla Warfare is "slagging me off" (horrible expression, but apparently that's what she's doing) on Wikipediocracy for "doxing" her (it's a disgusting insult - I haven't looked at Wikipediocracy, but for the record I have never called her or any other woman a doxy anywhere) and outing her as a woman here on Wikipedia! Sadly, because of this photo of her (uploaded in 2011). I assumed she was female. I suppose it could be a man, but I stupidly thought it unlikely. Whatever, it seems to me that if even Arbs are prepared to fight dirty and take this vendetta to Wikipediocracy to score points, then there's little hope of sorting this in an decent way here. So it seems we can now all take the gloves off prepare for battle. Giano (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Gorilla Warfare [190]. You seem prepared to use any means and media at your disposal to portray yourself as a poor little woman. I suspect you are one tough cookie, whether you are a clever one or not remains to be seen. However, at the moment you and the "sisterhood" are looking all too transparent. Giano (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@ GorillaWarfare [191]:Yes, I can see why you would find that embarrassing. You placing that misguided block was rather like the joke of "how many men does it take to change a lighbulb?" Giano (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Interactions at GGTF: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Without commenting on the substance of the accusations, the tone of them is certainly not appropriate. I'm not sure why last year's committee simply endorsed the suggestion of an iban rather than actually implementing one, but the voluntary ban has not been taken up and the situation has not improved. I am inclined to grant this request and enact the iban. @ Two kinds of pork: please remember that making allegations without presenting evidence to back them up can be a form of harassment. Please either back up what you say or withdraw your comments. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
• Nobody endorsed an i-ban. This is what I said. While HIAB might concentrate more on diffs than rhetoric if this arises again in the future, there's not much here for ArbCom.   Roger Davies ^talk 19:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, Lightbreather. Thanks very much for that. Do you know how the split goes for the past six months? And what the corresponding figures for WP:AE are?   Roger Davies ^talk 20:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • HIAB Re yours 13:42, 6 Feb. No, I didn't say that at all.   Roger Davies ^talk 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • TParis and Karanacs Thanks for the data. I haven't had a chance to look at it yet. [TP: Vexatious applies to the nature not the volume.]   Roger Davies ^talk 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Lightbreather This diff told you how to proceed, on 18 Dec. I repeated it on 2 Feb.   Roger Davies ^talk 23:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Thryduulf. Last year's committee made a mess of this case, and as it is becoming apparent, did not solve anything. Courcelles 21:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
  • !? Neither Lightbreather nor Hell in a Bucket were parties,   Roger Davies ^talk 23:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
    • That was a general comment on how poorly the case was decided. I won't get into every issue, but the topic bans and DS were poorly written. The DS should have matched the scope of the topic bans, which is usual practice. The topic bans should have read more along the lines of "Editors topic banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited on the English Wikipedia from editing any pages or making any edits related to: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process broadly construed to do with these topics." That's the more usual formulation of such things, and the DS being limited strictly to the GGTF is too narrow (though I guess the gender disparity among Wikipedians could be included under GamerGate's "gender-related controversy" authorization.) The GGTF itself was really only the more minor part of the area of conflict here. Courcelles 00:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
      • There was no popular clamour for DS during the case; what comment there was was against them, hence the ArbCom-lite ones. Much has changed since though.   Roger Davies ^talk 13:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Why can't the two of you just avoid each other, as suggested by GW last year? Ah well. Inclined to support a two-way i-ban given the current Lightbreather/HIAB interactions don't seem to be contributing much towards building an encyclopedia. Noting the scope of the case, I wonder whether an i-ban could be limited to matters or discussions relating to GGTF/gender, or whether that would create needless work for wikilawyers. Related matters - Lightbreather, an i-ban would not cover interactions outside en-WP, nor would it cover general comments on an issue where those were not in direct or indirect reply to you. And it would be two-way - you could not directly or indirectly reply to anything HIAB posted either. Also to both parties: this page is not the place to relitigate Lightbreather's sockpuppet block which occurred, was appealed, was upheld and has since expired. Absent further evidence of sockpuppetry, its time for both parties to move along on this issue. -- Euryalus ( talk) 22:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Karanacs: - I can't speak for the others, but I would envisage something like the example at WP:IBAN, with each party prohibited from a) editing the other's user or talkpage; b) replying to te other editor in discussions; c) referring to the other either directly or indirectly; and d) undoing the other's edits. It would not prevent them both contributing to a topic of discussion (eg. GGTF), provided they did not reply to or comment on the othe rperson in any discernable way. Comment on the issue, sure. Comment on the person, no. -- Euryalus ( talk) 22:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Sitush: - I'm inclined to agree re vexation. I also agree with Salvio regarding the use of allegations as a conversational weapon. But I still can't see the argument against this: that the overall editing environment would be improved if Lightbreather and HIAB were permitted to comment on issues but forbidden to comment on each other, per the standard example given at WP:IBAN. I appreciate the wikilawyer risk but set that against the chance that this would reduce current sniping. I am, perhaps, an optimist.-- Euryalus ( talk) 00:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Lightbreather:, a quick question, why, given the GGTF element is only part of the evidence presented, did you bring this here rather than AN or ANI? -- Euryalus ( talk) 09:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Hawkeye7: - sorry if I expressed it unclearly. Point I was trying to make is an I-ban here doesn't flow on to other wikis. -- Euryalus ( talk) 09:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Doncram: Minor point, I doubt Arbcom can endorse the existence of private club spaces - that would be a policy decision that, if proposed, should be decided either way by the community.

@ GRuban:, I agree with your first paragraph, but would be interested in your view as to why this should be dealt with here rather than at ANI? I asked the same question of Lightbreather a bit earlier, but am still not entirely convinced that the current poor interactions and sniping are legitimately part of the GGTF case, and not something for regular community dispute resolution. Despite Lightbreather's repl, I still have a sense that this matter is before ARCA and not ANI because it was considered easier to use this forum and a result was more likely. -- Euryalus ( talk) 08:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lately, I see the word "harassment" being thrown around far too liberally, for my tastes – often as a way to "respond" to criticism. That said, I don't see anything warranting an interaction ban, here, and, accordingly, I shall oppose any such remedy if proposed. I also have to say that, in my opinion, Lightbreater is conducting herself as a vexatious litigant and a forum shopper, which is disruptive. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)'
• I agree with Thryduulf & Euryalus above. It is clear that interaction between the two editors is not going to be helpful to the encyclopedia; a i-ban is an appropriate way to prevent further escalation. It's not going to solve underlying issues, but it will avoid some of the problems in discussing them. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• So far I'm not convinced that this shouldn't be handled by the community. I'll also note that some of this discussion is predicated on ArbCom having suggested an iban last year, but this appears to be inaccurate. Dougweller ( talk) 11:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
• Just noting that I fully intend to comment here (hopefully tonight or tomorrow). A number of IRL circumstances have combined such that I've had very little time for Wikipedia in the past week or so, so apologies for delays. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• A good number of the diffs that Lightbreather posted in the original request do more to convince me that Hell in a Bucket is generally incapable of participating in the gender gap topic area than they do that he cannot interact productively with Lightbreather. I still feel, as I did in December, that Hell in a Bucket and Lightbreather would do well to disengage, and the sexism and insults he included in his statements here further drive that home for me. I do not agree with the other arbitrators who are writing Lightbreather off as a "vexatious litigant" and such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• @ Hell in a Bucket: "Before you get too wound up," "Also the attempts to invoke my block log is cute," "Do you notice how she wails..." This doesn't seem sexist? The rest of the Committee can outvote me, if I am indeed an incompetent woman myself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• @ Hell in a Bucket: Quite frankly, I don't see why you saying that Lightbreather has been polite is supposed to convince me of your "equalism." Your conduct here has been extremely subpar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• @ Hell in a Bucket: Was that really supposed to convince me, or...? GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• @ Hell in a Bucket: "women are equal if they choose to be, no man can take that away from them"... Claiming that oppressed people are oppressed because they're not choosing to stand up to it is, quite frankly, ridiculous. That comment does make me revisit my sexism comment, and certainly does not make me think otherwise. GorillaWarfare (talk) 09:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• @ Sitush: In order: No, no, no, I don't know why you think I would discuss contents of a private list, and amendments to existing previous cases are quite clearly within scope. GorillaWarfare (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• @ Giano: That's completely inaccurate. Someone asked me "I would be interested to read some examples of how being known to be a young woman (and undeniably no gorgon) has affected personal interactions that made it more difficult for Gorillawarfare to edit and administrate on Wikipedia, if she is willing to share some." I replied to say "Getting doxxed was a pretty huge one; probably the best example. As for on-wiki, this exchange regarding my block of Giano isn't a bad example." I did not say you doxxed me; that had happened long before and with far more information than just my gender (which was public knowledge by then). I said that the exchange wrt your block was the best on-wiki example of how my gender sometimes affects personal interactions. As for "taking this vendetta to Wikipediocracy," that exchange happened on 19 January, long before this CaAR was posted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• @ Giano: You commented, "Is she some poor, feeble little woman incapable of acting alone? But then of course she needed a third man to help her place the block, so perhaps she is." and compared me to a "beloved aunt, who when arranging flowers, had a butler to hold the vase, a gardener to select and pass her the flowers, a maid to cut the stems, and three friends to admire her handiwork and artistry," and I'm the one portraying myself as a "poor little woman"? Please. That said, I don't actually see what your comment has to do with the case amendment request. If you do decide to continue commenting here, please notice my username doesn't contain a space; your messages are not pinging me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• These two editors plainly need to be separated, as all the evidence points towards their being unable or unwilling to conduct themselves properly. I would support a motion interaction-banning them from one another. AGK [•] 23:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Interactions at GGTF: Proposed motions

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Motion (Hell in a Bucket and Lightbreather interaction ban)

 Clerk note: With current votes this motion cannot pass. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
2. -- Guerillero | My Talk 02:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Yes, this needs to stop now. If there are legitimate issues with the editing of either party, they need to be raised by someone else at this point. Courcelles 02:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

   On balance, close enough to GGTF (and arising from it) to narrowly fall within ARCA. Unhelpful conduct includes some evidence of sanction requests as weapons, against an unwillingness to drop the stick. Not enough on either side for more than an I-ban but heading that way if pain persists. -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Striking to permit reconsideration of the proposals below. Jurisdictional argument, alternative proposals and particularly some recent goings-on at DR which need review in the context of the draft motion below. -- Euryalus ( talk) 13:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

4. Appears necessary and within our appropriate role. There's no point putting off action. The length of this discussion shows the incompleteness of our prior decisions,and we should try to finish the work. It is not likely to settle itself, and if the community could deal with it , they would have done so long ago. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

   No matter how well meaning, we are still bound by policy and may not overreach. We are not "GovCom".

   • This dispute is only peripherally involved with a previous case. We have jurisdiction over the case, not over every single case page participant.
   • We can deal with "serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve". One editor calling another a liar, with no previous dispute resolution, doesn't reach that bar. ( "Scope" ArbPol)
   • We can only deal with things by motion when "the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed". That is not the case here. ( "Motions" ArbPol)
   • Ibans are only for situations that cannot "be otherwise resolved. No DR has been attempted. ( I-ban policy)

     Roger Davies ^talk 06:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I could support this only if Lightbreather was also topic banned from administrative noticeboards and restricted from requesting, suggesting, supporting, opposing, or even hinting at the possibility that another editor may be sanctioned, otherwise we are simply encouraging (and rewarding) vexatious litigations and forum shopping. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
2. I doubt that a simple i-ban will prevent disruption and there is the great risk that it is likely to provide a springboard for even more of it. If the committee must intervene, the remedy must be far more nuanced than this. To crystallise this further, I'm thinking of Race and intelligence, where related t-bans and i-bans led to some thirty clarification/enforcement processes of one sort or another at WP:AN, WP:AE and WP:ARCA and dragged on for years. So, essentially per Salvio,   Roger Davies ^talk 10:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
3. Oppose. It's all too easy to just say "let ArbCom handle this". It hasn't yet been shown that the community is powerless to deal with this problem. Dougweller ( talk) 13:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
4. To start, I'm not really sure why this is here. If this is requested as an enforcement of discretionary sanctions, AE is the place for that, if it's requested based on general behavior, that's done at AN. I'm not comfortable with the idea that we become a go-to for sanctions to be imposed outside of a case, on editors who weren't even party to the case. I also agree with Salvio that this really isn't sufficient, and that the poor behavior of both the editors up for an interaction ban isn't limited to their interactions with one another. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
5. If anything, I think Roger's proposal will better help resolve the issues at hand. L Faraone 12:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Abstain

1. What I think we have here is a vexatious litigant who dislikes criticism (Lightbreather) and someone who seems to be going out of their way to fuel discord in the topic area (Hell in a Bucket) who (perhaps almost coincidentally) really cannot interact with each other in a mature fashion. The two do need to be separated, but I'm as yet undecided whether this is the way to do that best or whether we need a different tack (or this plus one or two other motions). I expect to come down for or against this motion when I have thought more about it. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Abstain leaning toward oppose. I haven't yet been convinced that this is something we should be dealing with rather than the community. Dougweller ( talk) 11:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Recuse

Arbitrator discussion

• Doug and Chris. I agree with entirely with you about this being primarily a community matter. I simply wonder whether the time it's hung around here has left it too stale to sensibly refer back. If so, what can we do to speed these things up so that we can things refer back within an expedited time-frame? Input welcome,   Roger Davies ^talk 12:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• To move this on, how about something along the following lines? Suggestions welcome,   Roger Davies ^talk 14:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd be happy with this. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft motion (LB and HIAB i-ban)

Discussion by arbitrators

• How does this work for everyone?   Roger Davies ^talk 14:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Would certainly address some of the issues raised. I do think we're over-complicating this though - these two clearly cant usefully interact, but befor we take any action we need to first determine our authority for doing so. Is there a sufficient case to say the recent poor interactions fall within the GGTF case outcomes? If not, is there evidence that community dispute resolution has unarguably failed? If not, should this go to ANI instead? Either way, is there evidence this is a bad-faith request due to a) forum shopping and b) a deliberate attempt to I-ban every critic? Is there actual harassment going on, or is that just a chilling tactic claim And either of the last two questions are correct, should we address this regardless of the outcome of this specific I-ban request? These and many more questions ... Anyway. Will vote tomorrow, but unlikely to support this proposal as the answers to the questions should result in a clear yes/no on the earlier motion, and this second motion goes beyond my view of the scope of the GGTF case. -- Euryalus ( talk) 15:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I started with deep reservations about us handling this but my position has changed because the issues have escalated during the five days it's been here. Both LB and HIAB (see my talk, this morning) now consent to us resolving this and a motion is the fastest way forward. It has taken us too long to get here, and bouncing a tangled mess to the community is not really right at this late stage. Regarding the DR restriction, having to get an ArbCom imprimatur before any DR participation effectively inoculates LB against subsequent forum shopping claims, so it shouldn't be seen as per se punitive.   Roger Davies ^talk 15:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, why are 1 and 2 separate rather than the standard mutual interaction ban formula; this one seems somewhat weaker than the usual, though I think the "indirectly" word likely should become part of the standard language? (Also no mention of the standard exceptions, is this intentional?). For Lightbreather, why does she need the positive consent of the Committee as a body? Surely one arb saying this is okay would be sufficient, rather than waiting for eight arbs to make the same determination; are we really going to take an informal poll each time? I feel like part ii of item 3 is too close to us babysitting her; what are we going to do with these notifications, if no consent to participate is required (and that isn't an argument it should be, we're prone to slowness.) Hell in a Bucket has also convinced me he needs a very broad topic ban to get out of the gender gap issue, maybe even as broad as the GamerGate formulation of any gender-related controversy, of which the WP gender gap is one. Courcelles 17:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This was put up for discussion not for voting. It's what we put in place to deal with an earlier similar situation. Comments: (i) removing the standard exemptions was deliberate; they're too easily gamed; (ii) with a topic ban in place that excludes DR, we need another mechanism. ArbCom keeping a watching brief satisfies this; (iii) in practice, "the committee" is delegated to, say, the first couple or three arbs to get to it, more eyes than fewer is good on requests to initiate; (iv) the notifications tell us what's happening so we're not caught out; (v) narrow topic bans & broad t-bans? Dunno yet.   Roger Davies ^talk 00:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• I would agree with this, with Courcelles' modification. It's enough of a check; in effect, I'm saying along with Courcelles that we trust each other. `` DGG ( talk )
• I've got one or two things to do first but I'll review this draft in the light of comments and propose it (including the ask/notify ArbCom restrictions) as an enhanced two-way i-ban. Having looked (albeit briefly for now) at the amount of "litigation" already, it is blindingly obvious that the standard one is unlikely to work. The advantage of the ask/notify provision is that it enables us to loosely monitor all aspects. Now on this later today,   Roger Davies ^talk 08:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft motion 2 (LB and HIAB i-ban)

Discussion by arbitrators

• I've cleaned up the earlier draft and made everything symmetrical. I'd like some feedback on whether to add a GGTF t-ban for both parties, as on the face it, they are way too invested. Such a t-ban would not of course cover the Kaffeeklatsch‎ but for as long as it remained in user space the i-ban would,   Roger Davies ^talk 02:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• The DR boards are basically WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:ARCA, WP:AE, not the content ones,   Roger Davies ^talk 02:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Still would rather 1c say ""initiating any dispute resolution process without first (i) emailing arbcom-l and (ii) obtaining by email the prior affirmative consent of an arbitrator to do so". That way it is guaranteed to get circulated among the entire Committee (contacting an arb individually won't work), while cutting down on the bureaucracy of an already bureaucratic sanction. I actually think the symmetrical sanctions are wrong here, I think Hell in a Bucket needs the standard topic ban of the GGTF case, not just from the GGTF and the iban, not the noticeboard restriction; whereas Lightbreather needs the iban and the noticeboard restriction, but not a topic ban at this time. Courcelles 03:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Things to think about certainly.   Roger Davies ^talk 03:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• I've reviewed contribs and I'm not seeing much to justify a topic ban for either of them. They're both alerted already for DS, so that can act as a brake there. I'm still of the view it needs more than one arb reviewing: I'll explain more in my next post,   Roger Davies ^talk 23:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• And I'd move "participating in" from b. to c. If their conduct is being discussed (and, so, they are responding), then they don't have to wait for ArbCom's approval, but a notification is sufficient; if their conduct is not being discussed, I see no reason to treat the initiation of a thread and the participation in it any differently. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• How would this address participation by proxy? Essentially, initiating dispute resolution processes by asking someone else to post in their behalf? -- Euryalus ( talk) 12:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've been thinking about exactly the same thing but per WP:BEANS won't address it here.   Roger Davies ^talk 14:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Also, how is "This remedy may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator;" actually workable, given no uninvolved admin is going to have access to arbcom-l to actually verify the remedies were followed? One of us would have to post in every thread to confirm the remedy was followed. The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced this is just make-work for Arbcom, instead of a solution. Courcelles 18:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The solution is simple. If the restricted parties wish to participate, they need to do the work. In this instance, by maintaining a log themselves. They need to keep track of which threads they comment in, with a diff of the comment they're responding to, and the time date of the notification to ArbCom. For stuff they initiate, they need timedate of their email to ArbCom, and timedate signature of the ArbCom responder's email. The paperwork will probably make them think twice for some of it, which is all to the good. Any admin can ensure that there are no discrepancies and check that we've had the emails.

    Turning now to your remark about "cutting down on the bureaucracy of an already bureaucratic sanction", I'm surprised this is a factor for you. This current request has preoccupied twenty-five editors over eight days, and spawned 2,000 words. It was initiated by LB, who ignored specific advice about how to proceed. I do not wish to defer another drama-fest but prevent them. So, if the solution is bureaucratic, it's a small price to pay compared to the time-wasted so far. And the approval needs to come from a couple or three arbitrators, not just one, the more eyes on potential easter eggs the better. Anyhow, I'll work up this draft tomorrow morning,   Roger Davies ^talk 23:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

    • I am strongly opposed to any restriction of LB's ability to use the DR routes because of a flawed narrative that does not follow the presented evidence at all. Compared to EVERY OTHER PERSON we deal with at arbcom, LB has been a saint; sure she made newbie mistakes, but lets give her some credit. All of her forays into DR have been for two things. (1) To get HiaB away from her because she sees his actions as harassment. (2) Trying to get admins to actually enforce the sanctions against Eric Corbett. I find both to be noble goals. Since the motion seems to eliminate 2, the removal of her from DR pretty much allows Eric to do what he pleases; no one else seems to want to report the infringement of his topic ban to AE. By passing this, we are continuing the saddening trend of removing women from wikipedia who buck the status quo while patting men on the head who do the same thing. I don't like this and consider it sexist. -- Guerillero | My Talk 05:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Harry's right. We need to dispose of this as quickly as possible, and I'm still not seeing a good reason for us to deal with it. If it had been brought up at elsewhere it would probably have been done and dusted by now. We should refer it back to the community and only if they can't deal with it consider it ourselves. Dougweller ( talk) 14:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Yep,   Roger Davies ^talk 14:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Motion to close

Enacted - -- L235 ( talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 18:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Support:

1.   Roger Davies ^talk 14:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
2. Dougweller ( talk) 14:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
3. I still see the benefit of an interaction ban between the two parties, and they would both do well to act as if one were in place, but it's clear that there is no consensus within the committee so this request isn't going to go anywhere. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
4. since the raw topic ban isn't going to pass -- Guerillero | My Talk 20:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
5. I obviously prefer an IBAN between the parties, and hope the community considers imposing it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
6. Like some of the people above, I support an i-ban as the simplest means of keeping these two editors apart - they seem incapable of interacting constructively and there is fault on both sides for that. Against this a fair point is raised that a) their interactions may fall outside any current case and therefore ARCA, and b) community DR has not been exhausted. GRuban rebuts this with a valid appeal against bureaucracy. Others expand the scope of the issue by pointing to issues such as vexation, weaponised complaints, stick-dropping, and some pointless gender warfare. A consequence is the actual i-ban proposal takes on a symbolic meaning which it doesn't deserve. The end results are, (i) that none of the proposed motions are likely to pass; and (ii) the conversation, while interesting, is about wider issues not the matter at hand. The answer is to reduce this to its fundamentals by sticking closely to the "rules", bureaucratic though they may be. Refer this back for community resolution and if it cannot be resolved there, consider it again as a motion (and not a GGTF ARCA). -- Euryalus ( talk) 01:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
7. If I was to support something it would need to be in a package, but I'm not that convinced by anything we've seen so far, and roughly looking at arbitrator opinion we couldn't find a solid consensus. NativeForeigner ^Talk 19:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
8. Begrudging support. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Unless something radically changes in the interactions between Lightbreather and Hell in a Bucket, this accomplishes nothing more than kicking the can down the road. The first motion made sense as a quick, simple solution to the immediate problem. The second (drafts) were bureaucratic messes that would have caused everyone more problems and work than benefits. We have a simple, and quite frankly harmless solution to stop the drama; there are enough eyes watching this dispute that these two don't need to be in each others' way, others would intervene withotu the history if there were problems. Also, I don't think we've ever passed a formal motion to close something at ARCA without action. I do not want this to become a precedent for that. Courcelles 18:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
2. They need it and we can do it. And in particular, anything we can do to decrease tensions surrounding this issue we should try to do. The procedural issues and the formal jurisdictional issues are secondary. We're not a formal court. We're not strictly bound by precedent. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

   The core dispute between LB and HIAB has got better not worse. They've said their piece and are moving on. The escalation by others will not addressed by an out-of-process i-ban.   Roger Davies ^talk 06:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Abstain:

Comments: