User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

3RR

Your recent editing history at National_Rifle_Association#Finances shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

See:

In particular, I'm talking about the "considerable amount" text at the beginning of the second paragraph (WP:EDITORIAL), the removal of the total budget at the beginning of the finances section (which provides context), the NSSF statistics (WP:UNDUE), and the re-addition of the Hickey sources (unreliable and biased). Please self-RV. Faceless Enemy (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I have had a broken elbow since March 30, when I fell down while I was out of state helping a hospitalized friend. I have since returned home and I had surgery on my elbow on April 8. My arm is in a cast, I am in pain, and my waking and sleeping patterns have been disrupted - and my ability to type has been restricted to my non-dominant hand. After weighing my options, I have decided to respond at Talk:National Rifle Association#Edit warring to the various discussions Faceless Enemy has started on different pages.

This problem goes back weeks, and I have made good-faith efforts to resolve it. There is more going on here than meets the eye. Lightbreather (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Get well soon Lightbreather

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Nazi gun control

"I STARTED A TALK-PAGE DISCUSSION." Perhaps I'm missing it as we've both been involved in discussions on that page. Would you mind linking what section you are referring to, so I can join the discussion? or perhaps a new section would be warranted. I'm hopeful we can come to an agreement/compromise, as I believe we both have good intentions. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I see the section there now. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 22:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

23:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Nazi gun control shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe you've jumped the gun on this. 3RR is NOT based on total number of edits to an article w/in a 24-hour period. As I've been told, a series of uninterupted edits is one edit. It not only used to confuse me, but still does, so I could be wrong. Please read WP:3RR. FWIW, my motive here is not to win a war, but to nip in the bud what is starting to look like a war. Your edits on Nazi gun control theory started by removing that it is a FRINGE theory, without consensus, and then you proceeded to make changes that would only make sense if we've all agreed that it is NOT a fringe theory. THAT problem should have been sorted out long before all the other little related things started creeping in. Lightbreather (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

You are aware that the discretionary sanctions currently in place re gun control started with a war over "Nazi gun control" trouble, right? Lightbreather (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not aware, and do not know anything about that matter, (except through references others have made to it). I may have glanced over it once when someone brought it up on the talk page.

Secondly, your revert after the one with "My 3rd and final revert for today", was an overreach in my opinion, undoing many editors contributions, and I would encourage you to revert it. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion, my final effort was good-faith, so I will not revert it, and I strongly advise you and others (myself included) to back up and start over with the question I posted on the article talk page.

The gun control ArbCom that lead to discretionary sanctions lead to FOUR editors who were pushing to include Nazi gun control material in a gun-control article being TOPIC BANNED from ever editing on GC articles. (One was actually site banned from Wikipedia.) Two other editors were warned. ArbCom is big doings.

I will reply no further here. Lightbreather (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Nazi gun control theory

I have just asked you to let me voice my own opinions on the subject of the article - which clearly does not amount to a request for you to trawl through my previous posts and copy them there. So unless it is actually your intention to get into an argument with everyone on the talk page, I'd ask that you remove your latest post, and stop trying to tell people what I think. Not only is it bad manners (particularly after I'd made an explicit request not to do it), but it is counterproductive, since it looks very much like an attempt to turn the whole thing into an us-vs-them faction-fight, rather than a discussion of how Wikipedia policy relates to the issue. Your suggestion of an RfC was misguided in my opinion, and you might do better to simply let the discussion evolve, rather than trying to corral everyone into an entirely inappropriate vote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Civility in the Talk:Nazi gun control theory

The discussion should remain civil. I would appreciate it if you would stop using the term "Godsy-preffered", because it conveys that you know what I'd prefer (which you do not) AND incorrectly conveys my actual positions or speculates to what they might be. I do not advocate a personal view, I advocate policy (they may not necessarily line up), so to use the phrase it in that manner is inaccurate. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So if we don't go back to your preferred version in your preferred way, you believe it will be detrimental to the discussion. That's not quite how it works here, but thanks for the input. trying to illustrate a point, not intentionally being sarcastic or claiming to know what you believe/think[5] 01:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC), Godsy

Your "preferred" comment preceded mine[6] by 18 hours. I think you should cool down and go read some of the past material about this Nazi-gun-control debate on Wikipedia.

Please stay off my page for now, unless you come to give notice of starting a formal process. Lightbreather (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion Chess started: indef gun control ban for User:Lightbreather

Yet more insinuations of sockpuppetry

I see that you have yet again ignored my advice, and the comments in the thread regarding your behaviour at WP:AN, and have continued to make unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry at Talk:Nazi gun control theory. Consider this fair warning - if you persist with this, I may very well change my position regarding the proposal that you be topic banned. You are achieving precisely nothing beyond antagonising people. Either file a SPI, or let the matter drop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

I have just blocked you for violating the WP:OUTING policy in your post on AN I just suppressed. If you want to appeal this block, please use the {{unblock}} template. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano, can you tell me (email, I guess) what I "outed"? Lightbreather (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mail sent.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 19:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this block is purely over the outing concern — I see on AN that there are other concerns — but if it is, I think it's excessive. I saw the post before it was suppressed, and of course I don't want to discuss any details of it, but IMO a warning would do. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
- On second thoughts, it's probably fairer to describe Lightbreather's conduct as a way to harass another editor all the while being able to claim deniability. Either way, I believe a block is necessary. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  - At the time Salvio blocked me, he had only 24 other edits for the month of April - nothing at the Administrators' noticeboard. Considering some of his past comments about me:

23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC) "Lightbreater is conducting herself as a vexatious litigant and a forum shopper, which is disruptive."
10:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC) "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."
19:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "[Lightbreather's] behaviour is, IMHO, generally disruptive: I consider her a vexatious litigant and a person who never drops the stick."
20:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "72.223.98.118 and 69.16.147.185 (Lightbreather denies having operated the latter, but I didn't believe her and still don't)."
21:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "Well, now we can add personal attacks to your list of transgressions."
21:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "Yes, really. I commented on this personal attack because it's the one I saw."

And that he called me a liar/fibber at least four times in this conversation on his talk page, after I was blocked[7] (despite numerous explanations, private and public - such as this one [8] (scroll down to "Fifth") - about why I had edited while logged out) for "sock puppetry" back in November...

I believe Salvio is lacking in care and judgement (at least when it comes to me), and unable to maintain the non-biased, uninvolved position an admin should assume when judging a situation. Further, considering the evidence I just gave, as well as the reason he gave me privately about why he assumed I was outing someone, I believe it's possible that he's watching me for opportunities to block. Lightbreather (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. Perhaps you might like to explain why you came to my talk page yesterday? Eric Corbett 21:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fuck off, Eric. This is completely the wrong time for you to be posting here. I might review the block as an uninvolved admin tomorrow, unless the august company of oversighters have got somewhere with their discussion by then. Most of us ordinary middle-management admins can't review it, because they don't have access to the post Salvio blocked over, but I happened to see it before it was suppressed, as I noted above. I'll sleep on it. Very late here. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

This comment was somewhat amusingly-timed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to "fuck off" Bishonen, if you'd be equally happy to tell Lightbreather to "fuck off" from my talk page. Which you don't appear to have done. Eric Corbett 00:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Lightbreather (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can someone get involved privately? I've got an email from Salvio - this was no outing. I am getting ready to go to my son's house, but I will check in if I can via phone, otherwise I'll be home later. Lightbreather (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per below, the initial charge of outing is not supported by consensus of the oversight-l team. Unblock is purely due to that, but I'm cautioning LightBreather that things really need to change, and fast. Courcelles (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I propose to review this request by e-mail discussion with the blocking admin and the user. Although based on oversighted material, the block is clearly not an "oversight block" in any sense that would make it unsuitable for me to review it, see this and this: I'm in fact fully aware of the circumstances that led to the block. Lightbreather, you have been charged with outing, and you know why; please e-mail me explaining fully and frankly why you consider you didn't out anybody. Please don't waste your time attacking the blocking admin further, as I've seen all I need of that. Salvio giuliano, I'll be in touch, but if you have something to tell me right away (such as objecting to me reviewing the unblock request at all), then please message me, in public or private. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

You need to be aware, Bishonen, that Salvio took the block itself, the block length, and the oversight to the Oversighters for review. The review has had extensive input and is almost complete. I mention this to avoid inadvertent duplication of efforts elsewhere. Roger Davies ^talk 12:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's all right, Roger, I'll just leave it to the oversighters. After following Lightbreather's talkpage today, I've lost the will to unblock her. I still doubt the particular post in question was outing, but I rather hope you people block her for a long time for terminally bad attitude. I'm putting the unblock template back the way it was. Bishonen | talk 16:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. Roger Davies ^talk 17:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad attitude? Eric is the curmudgeon's curmudgeon, but he's painted as cuddly, like a cartoon bear, and I'm treated like a shrew. (Interesting that WP redirects curmudgeon to "misanthrope.") Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow; this is a tremendously inappropriate block, regardless of the merits, for Salvio to be making. Salvio: your many comments about Lightbreather over an extremely long period demonstrate that there is no way you are uninvolved enough to make a call here. Someone - you or someone else - needs to unblock Lightbreather so that the situation can be evaluated by somebody who hasn't repeatedly declared LB to be acting in bad faith. Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please link to my many comments? I remember having commented on her conduct once after blocking her for block evasion, which is an interaction in my admin capacity, and once in an ANI or AN thread.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 20:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's see off the top of my head, describing her as a vexatious litigant and forum shopper, twice, who should be banned from the administrative noticeboards, and an entire talkpage section, ending here, about LB's behaviour, with extensive commentary from you. Yes, these were largely administrative in nature, and WP:INVOLVED does have (for very good reason) an expectation that people will not be considered involved solely for their work on a site administration basis. But that exception is based on the idea that it is purely administrative and never devolves from the relatively detached viewpoint an admin (ideally) maintains while dealing with users in a dispute; the example the policy provides is

Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.

The attitude you've displayed in the diffs above, and the attitude you have displayed in this discussion ('it's probably fairer to describe Lightbreather's conduct as a way to harass another editor all the while being able to claim deniability') does not suggest that you have that detached viewpoint; it suggests that you have strong views about LB that does make you involved. And to quote from the policy again, "Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards". This block may be completely justified - I'm not in the position to judge because I don't have OS access. But it should not have been performed by you. I'm agreed with and grateful to GW below for reaching out and getting more (qualified) eyeballs on this block. Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I had entirely forgotten about my comments on ARCA. Then again, as you recognise, those are all in an admin/arb capacity and, therefore, are not enough for me to be deeed involved.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 20:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That sort of neatly glosses over the entire thing about what makes an admin or arb action uninvolved or involved, but whatever; it looks like other oversighters are on the problem, and your approach here is reading a lot like you realised you were wrong and decided the solution was to hunker down. This place'd work a lot better if people stopped being scared of admitting they made a bad call; everyone makes them. Ironholds (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not going to be the one to review the block, but I'm just noting here that I've emailed Salvio to clarify/discuss. An outside set of (oversighter) eyes might be valuable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen, Ironholds, and GorillaWarfare: How can I go about getting an (uninvolved or less involved, I hope) admin to review this? Lightbreather (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Salvio is going to begin a discussion on the oversight mailing list. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you know when this will happen, how long it might take, and whether or not I will I be able to participate? There is a discussion going on elsewhere where I am being misrepresented, and from here I have no way to defend myself. Lightbreather (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Or can I at least, for now, be granted permission to make a statement in that (ARE) discussion? Lightbreather (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, Callanecc, and Bishonen: Since I have been talked about prominently in the currently open EC ARE, I hope you would not close it before my block has been properly reviewed. I should like to make a statement. Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion has begun there now. I'm sure if any of the oversighters require your input, they will contact you. As for your participation in the AE discussion, I'll leave that up to the administrators that are helping with that request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Put your statement here (maybe in a new section, but it's your talk page) and someone can copy it across to AE for you. Do want the section below copied over as a "statement"? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I think I'm signing off for tonight. Lightbreather (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there some way to get Salvio relieved of CU/Oversight rights? I don't think I'm the only one who is uncomfortable about him having them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: The relevant policy is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight#Removals. Basically, if you have concerns that someone is abusing the tools, you need to detail these concerns to the Audit subcommittee. If you believe someone is no longer suitable to have the tools for some other reason then you need to explain why to the Arbitration Committee. Salvio holds the permissions as a result of his being elected an arbitrator, but would of course recuse from any discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I-ban: Lightbreather and Sitush

Just to tidy up all the current loose ends, an iban (under DS Arb:GGTF) is probably now needed. Easiest may be to roll it into the review of the oversighting, block length etc. I'll mention it on Sitush's talk in a moment, Roger Davies ^talk 17:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering that Sitush already has an IBAN with Carolmooredc,[9] and he and Eric and others have the same high opinion of us - often comparing us - it's probably not a bad idea. Something I've said before: I've read Carol's views on many things and I don't think there is much of anything we see eye-to-eye on. The only thing I'd say we agree on is that to be a woman on Wikipedia, you'd better be ready to ignore incivility and sexism, or prepared to take a beating for complaining about it. For this reason, we are both lumped together as "militant feminists." It's ridiculous. Lightbreather (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, here's what's going on. Oversight-l has reached a consensus that no outing took place here. Therefore, I've unblocked you, in my personal capacity as an admin. Also, in that capacity, I'm going to give a fairly strong warning to stay out of drama, and to try and avoid getting in entanglements with other users. Focus on articles, and leave project-space and the drama alone for a while. It'll help you enjoy this place better. What you did could be considered snippy, and you need to avoid that in the future, but a consensus of oversighters is that it was not in violation of the outing policies. You've been blocked for three days now, and in my personal opinion (and explicitly not a decision of the oversight team), that's plenty enough time for this incident. Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Courcelles, there's an unblock request template up above. Please change it so the page is removed from the Requests for unblock category. Bishonen | talk 18:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC).

Let me be crystal clear before I deal with Bishonen's comment, which I'll do in a second. You and Sitush need to stop the drama. If it doesn't stop, I will be issuing what interaction bans I consider useful under WP:ARBGGTF to stop it. I'm not endorsing you conduct since the block. I reversed it because it was made on a false charge of misconduct. Courcelles (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Further again: If any other admin wants to reblock for some other reason, for any duration, I do not object, and would not consider it wheel-waring whatsoever. Courcelles (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Allegations and baiting at ARE - and here

Regarding Eric Corbett once again being brought before ARE[10] and the statements that have been made about me:

@Sitush:[11]

What a coincidence. I can't speak for Gobonobo, but for me, yes - a coincidence.
Where have these people been for the last three weeks? I've mostly been working in my preferred subject areas, which you have started to get involved in.
Eric has plenty of watchers. And plenty of enablers, who love to start discussions on his page that they ought not to,[12] and encourage him when he starts discussions there[13] that he'd be better off avoiding.

The question is, why did she reignite that thread?[14]

Sitush, I ended up on Eric's page because of your participation in a discussion at AN. Your first comment[15] wasn't bad, but it was followed by several[16][17][18] that showed you were getting over stimulated. (The last one showed you were willing to make an arbitrary call about any editor who agreed with an edit of mine, whether you knew who they were or not.) I've learned that when this happens, you might be talking about me on Eric's page - risky as it is for him. I went there, and lo! Eric himself had started a discussion about RfA and GGTF, ending with: "Now block/ban me, and see if I care."[19] So Eric can thank you, and he owes you thanks for leading me to his page more than once now.

That discussion that Eric nailed to his own talk page on Easter, did I respond to him? No - well not at first anyway. My comment was to two other editors.[20] Then, I asked Eric a simple question: What is your purpose when you start discussions like this?[21] Of course, you, Sitush - within the minute that I asked my question - then took the ball and ran with it. LB, are you hallucinating?[22] I wasn't baiting anyone; you were! Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@EChastain:[23] If the examples you gave of "baiting" are baiting, then I've been baited pretty much from the day I started actively editing here. They were certainly no more bait-like than Eric's posts,[24][25][26][27][28] including the one that he started the discussion with. (see next) Hell, one of the diffs you gave was of me fixing a typo![29]

Let's record Eric's opening salvo here. He titled it "Forbidden topics."[30]

I'm forbidden to comment on RfA or the GGTF, but nevertheless I want to sign off by commenting on both.

RfA is a vicious travesty that ought to have been stopped long ago.

The GGTF is also a travesty, fuelled by comments made by the terminally dim Sue Gardner, and which will cost the WMF lots of money in funding daft projects that will not make the slightest difference to anything.

Now block/ban me, and see if I care. Eric Corbett 20:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Karanacs:[31] I did NOT go to Eric's page to bait him. If you read the @Sitush section above, you will learn exactly why I went to Eric's page. So he made his comment three weeks ago? If he hadn't made it at all (afterall, he's not supposed to be doing things like that), neither his fans or I would have had a comment to make and Gobonobo wouldn't have come here to ARE. Lightbreather (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw:[32] As long as Eric and others use his talk page to talk about me or projects that I work on - one that he's banned from - I think that would be unfair. Lightbreather (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, Callanecc, Bishonen, and Ymblanter: Bishonen already knows this, but y'all are the ones who've responded at "Result concerning Eric Corbett" so far. Today, Eric came to my talk page to make these comments:

Welcome to the club. Perhaps you might like to explain why you came to my talk page yesterday?[33]
I'd be quite happy to "fuck off" Bishonen, if you'd be equally happy to tell Lightbreather to "fuck off" from my talk page.[34]
Which you don't appear to have done.[35]

He's dared you to block him.[36] He's asking to be blocked.[37] He thinks this is a joke. He thinks I am. He thinks you are. He thinks civility is. And he is completely comfortable that he has enough fans to protect him from a long block or a ban. --Lightbreather (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding proposed IBAN/talk page ban

Callanecc, Ymblanter, and Zad68: I can accept these, but I'd like to have some conditions on the talk-page proposal. If Eric or others do talk about me - directly or indirectly - on his page, I should be able to respond. What do I mean by indirectly? Like someone writes a word - let's say "Voldemort" - but links it to my user page. (This diff shows that going the other way around,[38] but I could see some of them thinking it would be fun to come up with a code name for me. I might add, if I compared Eric to Voldemort, I guarantee I'd have at least one person, possibly even an admin, show up to tell me I was being uncivil, or baiting, or both.) Another example, talking about my IdeaLab (meta) proposal for a women-only space or the Kaffeeklatsch. (Example: Interesting also to notice that after all the palaver about a women-only space there is virtually no activity at the Kaffeeklatsch....[39] I'll also add, if I used the word "palaver" - especially about something Eric created - I guarantee I'd have at least one person, possibly even an admin, show up to tell me I was being uncivil, or baiting, or both.) Those places have talk pages, or they could take it to some other talk page where I'm not banned - and ping me, while they're at it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How about just rounding it up to a full IBAN then? Zad68 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, Lightbreather, can you please list all your current interaction bans? I'd also appreciate a list of those you've requested, and the venues at which you requested them. Thanks in advance, Roger Davies ^talk 18:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Assuming since you asked that I won't get sanctioned for mentioning editors by name. The only active, 2-way that I have is with Hell in a Bucket. Mike Searson has a 1-way with me. (I did not initiate it. It also included a topic-ban from gun control, but I don't know if that was recorded at ArbCom.) The only others I have ever asked for are Sue Rangell, who no longer edits under that username, and Scalhotrod. Lightbreather (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Both Sue and Scal hounded me, and both were warned by admins to knock it off. I will try to find diffs. Lightbreather (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The only diffs I'm interested in are the closing outcomes. Roger Davies ^talk 18:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. The links to HIAB and MS are in the text above. As for Scal, I've tried multiple times to get him to quit harassing me. I think this was the last time: Request administrator to evaluate conduct of user. It included proposals for a 1-way ban (Scal from me) and a 2-way ban. No decision was made. Lightbreather (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Roger Davies, Lightbreather also asked for an IBAN between herself and Two Kinds of Pork, here on her talk page, when she thought you would be able to have that entered into the Arb results for the Gender Gap case. Karanacs (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that. It would have been nice if you'd given the diff, so I didn't have to dig for it. Here's what I asked:

In fact, considering Two Kinds of Porks' repeated baiting,[40][41] casting aspersions,[42][43][44] and personal attack[45] here on my talk page, and considering that I've told him he's unwelcome here[46] and asked him outright to leave me alone[47][48] can we please include him, too? (Also, I don't appreciate TKOP calling Roger Davies a "Brownie.") Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[49]

Considering the evidence I provided, it doesn't seem frivolous. TKOP's role in that dispute was similar to Sitush's role to Eric's beef with me. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Roger Davies, Lightbreather also asked for an IBAN between herself and Scalhotrod at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in January but it was denied. [50] EChastain (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Like clockwork, here she shows up! Lightbreather (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, re my request for an iban with Scal in that incidence: To say it was "denied" kinda makes it sound like it was discussed, which it wasn't. ~~It wasn't acknowledged - perhaps overlooked since the ARE was about another editor?~~ I was advised to "make a separate enforcement request."[51] (The ARE under discussion was by another editor, about another editor.) Lightbreather (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × with EChastain. Why does this not surprise me?)Finally, as for Sue Rangell, I think the last IBAN proposal (initiated by admin TParis in Feb. 2014) ended with Sue and I agreeing to a voluntary ban, though she ultimately broke it.[52][53][54] In July 2014, I took her to ARE, which ended in her being warned to keep it on content, not contributor.[55][56] It is worth noting that she and Scal like to talk about me on their respective talk pages. Since Sue quit editing last August, Scal likes to go to Eric's page to make his comments. Also, two months after Sue quit editing, an editor named EChastain started. Her very first edit on Wikipedia was to an article that Sue Rangell knew (privately) that I had a strong personal connection to in real life. Within two weeks, she found her way to the GGTF ArbCom. She was the first person to show up here on my talk page when I was blocked last November. For this and other reasons (for which I've given evidence) TParis started an SPI on her.[57] I tried to revive it, and better present my evidence, after my block was over.[58] Much as Sue Rangell did, EChastain continues to look for opportunities to bait me and present "evidence" against me. There was no doubt in TParis' mind and there is none in mine that EChastain is a sock or meat puppet of Sue Rangell. Lightbreather (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, you were already under a gun control topic ban when you filed this request for discretionary sanctions:[59] EChastain (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Have I asked you before to stay off my talk page? Lightbreather (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As to your comment (you don't make clear your point):

In this case, the admin who imposed the topic ban exempted this request from the topic ban because it was made immediately prior to the imposition of the ban. The request may therefore be processed. On the merits, I see a higher-than-acceptable level of personal animosity in the edits by Sue Rangell in evidence, and I would warn Sue Rangell that she may be made subject to sanctions if she continues to focus on contributors rather than content in this manner. I do not think that sanctions beyond this warning are required now, if only, as a practical matter, because the mutual animosity isn't likely to flare up again soon now that Lightbreather has been topic-banned. Sandstein 15:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[60]

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

regarding the statement: " Sitush, I ended up on Eric's page because of your participation in a discussion at AN.". Why go to Eric's page? Why not address Sitush directly on their page? If it was indeed Sitush's "participation" which prompted you to respond - then if wished to speak outside of the AN discussion, then User talk:Sitush should have been your destination. — Ched : ? 04:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The quote is the first sentence of a whole paragraph[61] about why I went to Eric's page. I have addressed Sitush directly on his page in the past and will in the future when appropriate. I think a good question to ask Sitush would be: Why did you go to Eric's page? I don't go there regularly to talk about him (Sitush), and in fact, didn't mention him in the comments I made there on Sunday. The fact is, Sitush has a bad habit of following me around and poking me. I've asked him more than once to stop, but here's one example: Please take your own good advice - and please leave me alone. (It's also an example of me starting a discussion on his talk page.) Lightbreather (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Just realized that discussion has one of Sitush's comments referring to me as an "elephant in the room." He's used that one before.[62] Lightbreather (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, if you were not already blocked, I would have blocked you for baiting on Eric's page. I encourage you use this forced respite from Wikipedia to truly examine your behavior, and how it incites or contributes to disruption. Your post above, giving justifications for your behavior by blaming everyone else, is highly disturbing.

You were uncivil - accusing Sitush of being overstimulated (you commented on HIM rather than content of his accusations).
You assumed bad faith - that Sitush would be speaking poorly about you in other areas of the encyclopedia.
You wiki-stalked Sitush, assuming that he would be speaking poorly about you.
You went to the page of an editor with whom you have had frequent negative interactions for the sole purpose of arguing with him or those posting on his talk page. I see no other interpretation.
You then responded to three-week-old comments on the talk page of the editor with whom you have had frequent negative interactions and knowing that he would be unable to respond. You could have made those comments on the talk page of the editors with whom you disagreed. You could have refrained from making them - it is not necessary for you to defend the Kaffeeklatsch anywhere that it is mentioned. I consider this comment baiting.
While responding to that the three-week-old comments, you were uncivil.
You play the victim. Twice. First when referring to those marginalized on Wikipedia, and then expressing anger that Eric got sympathy posts when his cat died and you didn't when you broke your arm. This comment was completely unnecessary (and Sitush's was unnecessary as well). I consider this comment baiting.
You again defend the Kaffeeklatsch. Eric's talk page is not the venue for doing so. He is not supposed to specifically comment on this, it is not the forum for making changes - you are not going to change the minds of anyone who posts regularly on that page - and it's in response to a throwaway observation from three weeks previously. No one had responded to your previous comment about the K, yet you continued on a rant. I consider this baiting.
You continue posting on the topic after Eric tells you point-blank that he does not intend to discuss the GGTF. This is baiting.
You are condescending in your next post ("discussions here - which is what we call these things with headers on talk pages - ") and lecture Eric on how he should be posting. I consider this baiting.

I do think that you were also baited by Sitush. That does not excuse your behavior and your attempts to bait Eric. Basically, you inserted yourself in a stale conversation on the talk page of someone with whom you do not agree in order to defend an initiative (that wasn't being attacked) that you knew Eric wasn't allowed to talk about. That is pretty much the definition of baiting. Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs, re civility: I've fought hard to improve it on Wikipedia, and I haven't completely given up, but the fact is I've been told over and over again it's really unimportant - well, at least if it's directed at me. For instance, when Eric Corbett called me a cunt,[63] everyone rallied to say "That's just Eric," and "He really didn't call you a cunt," and so on. Just yesterday (before my writing here that Sitush was becoming over stimulated), he asked me if I was hallucinating.[64] The guy who is currently 1-way i-banned with me had to hint at hitting me upside the head with a shovel to get banned. (Repeated insults weren't uncivil enough.) If I ever suggest that Sitush is a motherfucker or threaten to hit someone upside the head with a shovel, then let's talk about civility. That is, if you or anyone else are going to ding me for civility, then I'd appreciate an even application of the policy. (And a chance to weasel out of it, just as Eric did with "cunt" - which is arguably every bit as offensive as "motherfucker" to most of the English speaking world.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I strongly encourage you to drop the defensiveness, stop wikilawyering, and actually look at what people have to tell you. The drama that seems to surround you could drop to a really small level if you made a few changes in your behavior. The only behavior that YOU can control is YOURS. Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In January of this year, this exchange was on Eric's talk page:[65]

The strange thing is that I've collaborated with loads of female editors on articles, probably more females than males, yet not a single one has ever complained about the the way I've treated them or interacted with them. The only females who've complained about me are those I've never come across and I wouldn't know from Adam. Eric Corbett 18:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett, you and I had never interacted until July 2014 when this happened at WT:AN:

Lightbreather: ... Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make [civility] a unique noticeboard area?[66]

Eric Corbett: ... the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.[67]

When I complained about it, you started following me around to harass me whenever I talked about civility. So you see that although perhaps many women have had the pleasure of collaborating with you, I have not. That doesn't negate the fact that you've collaborated with women, or that I've collaborated with men, but please don't try to pass yourself off as a victim. You've done your share of being uncivil, and that's a fact. Lightbreather (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

He deleted[68] my reply to his defensive poor-me statement so as to maintain his "victim" image, despite his crowing about transparency on his talk page.[69]

He is as defensive as they come. Nonetheless, he can control his behavior just as well as you or I, but he's rarely asked to do so. And when he is asked, officially, he's rarely made to do so. Please don't push Eric's problems - which pre-date my actively editing Wikipedia - onto me. Lightbreather (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As for assuming bad faith and wiki-stalking, I might agree if Sitush (and others) never stalked and spoke poorly of me in various forums across Wikipedia. But I could give you many diffs of when he has done so, which comes back around to poking and baiting. If some, like say Eric, are allowed to be offended, and encouraged to complain, about being poked and baited (or at least what they think is poking and baiting), then others ought to get the same pass. Lightbreather (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You went to the page of an editor with whom you have had frequent negative interactions for the sole purpose of arguing with him or those posting on his talk page. No, I did not. Which is more than misinterpretation: it's assuming bad faith since I explicitly stated why I went to his page. Lightbreather (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You then responded to three-week-old comments on the talk page of the editor with whom you have had frequent negative interactions and knowing that he would be unable to respond. This is also ABF. There are dozens of questions I could have asked to which he could not have responded. For instance:

Why can't you talk about RfA?

Why are you [anything] about GGTF?

What place do you think editor gender plays in Wikipedia content?

The things I asked him required no reason to discuss RfA or GGTF. He might say, "I do it out of protest," or "To give my friends and foes something to discuss here on my talk page." Or he could have taken it as a rhetorical - he poses them often enough himself - and not replied at all. My asking him the question that I asked was no more baiting than his starting the discussion the way that he did. Lightbreather (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't "play" the victim. I AM a victim, though I don't go around saying such. I mostly try to go about my business, editing my preferred subjects, and occasionally getting baited, harassed, stalked, or talked about. Sometimes I ignore it, sometimes I don't. Lightbreather (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is trying to turn a bad decision on Eric's part (and his friends) into a problem about me. The fact is, Eric should have never started the discussion that he started, and his friends (if they truly are his friends) should never respond publicly in-kind when he starts up his let's-all-talk-about-how-wronged-I-am threads.

I am just the latest in the long line of poor saps who won't roll over and give Eric and his friends special treatment, and who therefore receive "special" treatment from them. Lightbreather (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ask Eric to discuss GGTF, nor did we discuss GGTF. (I talked about it with three other editors who were part of the discussion.) I told Eric:

So you have a beef with Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales and I don't know who-all else that pre-dates my knowledge of your existence. You could do a lot to help restore peace to this community by not starting such discussions.[70]

And I believe that. Then he wanted to tell how much braver and stoic (more of a man) he was about his elbow injury than I was "fussing" about mine. The fact is, I hadn't brought up my elbow: Sitush had, and this time Eric took the ball and ran with it. It's teamwork. Eric and Sitush were baiting me. Lightbreather (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Condescending? Eric is perhaps the most condescending editor on Wikipedia. Remember the "Were you standing behind the door when they were handing out brains"[71] comment? Once again, if we're going to enforce policies, let's be consistent about it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Email

I received your email. I am within policy but I always welcome additional opinions. That is all I intend to say about that. Karanacs (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, when I go to questia.com, it says my membership is cancelled. Can you reactivate it? Lightbreather (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: - Did it expire or something? It should not have been cancelled because it was free. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the mix-up was because I had a personal, trial membership, and when I cancelled that I actually cancelled this one instead. Lightbreather (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban between yourself and Eric Corbett

Lightbreather, per the result of the discussion here at WP:AE, you and User:Eric Corbett are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other, broadly construed, per WP:IBAN. ~~Although this discussion was held at WP:AE this is to be considered a Community sanction and any clarification requests or appeals should be made at WP:AN.~~ Struck to replace with: This is a Discretionary Sanction that is an Arbitration Enforcement action under The GGTF decision as amended February 2015. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Zad68 01:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, note that I amended the close to be an AE action as opposed to a Community Sanction. Zad68 01:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Zad68, for the notice, and since I am currently restricted to my own page, may I ask a question about my other IBAN. That is, would this be an "appropriate forum" for "addressing a legitimate concern about [that] ban itself"? Would an email be better? Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, you're welcome to email me and I'll give you my level opinion, but it'll only be my opinion as I have no particular expertise or experience in evaluating IBANs. Zad68 01:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban

In accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorised at WP:ARBGGTF, you are hereby prohibited from addressing, referring to, commenting on, or otherwise interacting with Sitush, whether or not by name. Violation of this restriction will result in blocks. You may appeal this restriction in accordance with the appeals procedure. This restriction is in place indefinitely. You have the standard exemption to seek enforcement against Sitush should you feel that he has misconducted himself towards you, though it would be wise to seek advice privately from an admin you trust first. The immediate reason for this sanction is your conduct towards Sitush in a recent AN thread, and the broader reason the long history of animosity between the two of you. Since Courcelles states that he has no objection to such, I considered re-blocking you but decided that it would be more punitive than preventative, and so imposed this in lieu of a re-block. I second Courcelles' sage advice to spend your Wikipedia time in the mainspace and not on the drama and internal politics where you seem to run into problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: will you be putting Sitush under equivalent sanctions? Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Courcelles might also consider this sage advice. He hasn't added content to an article since 17 January. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Lightbreather and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Karanacs (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, "involved" is not an issue in the arbitration, as it is not an administrative action. Any user could file it, and they are generally file by those who are involved with the other party. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Lightbreather. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

As a named party, I thought I got 1,000 words. However, since I've been told that my opinion that Karanacs is involved doesn't matter for this action, can I just remove that? Lightbreather (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The 1000 word limit for parties is for evidence; every preliminary statement is limited to 500 words. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

You can check your word count at http://wordcounttools.com/. Right now, your statement rates 1209 words although it is a bit fewer than that because diffs do not count. But you can consider your statement at at least twice the length that it should be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. And what about questions? I have several unanswered questions there. Lightbreather (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI, since this page is still on my watchlist and A/R/C has been for years ... you might want to focus your statement on why the arbs should or should not accept the case, what the case's scope should be, and/or why you want those specific editors listed as parties. For the most part, the actual "evidence" (who did what and when and the various claims and counter-claims) can wait for the for the case itself if or when it's accepted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what HJ Mitchell said is pretty sound advice for anyone who is involved with an ArbCom case request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, my thanks for trimming your statement so promptly. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

L235 could you please talk with arbitrators about giving me permission to have 1000 words for my statement? I am trying to convince them to add eight people as involved parties. After adding six to my statement I'm up to 800 words and I need room for two more. Considering how many people are lining up to "try" me (so to speak), and since Karanacs got 500 words to talk about me, I don't think this is asking too much. Lightbreather (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't actually have any authority to grant your request. However, I'll bring it to the arbitrators' attention. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

L235, also, how do I ask for an arbitrator to recuse? Lightbreather (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Recusal_of_arbitrators, you may post a message on the arbitrator's talk page asking the arbitrator to recuse and giving reasons. Should the arbitrator not respond, or not recuse, the user may refer the request to the Committee for a ruling. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Salvio declined[72] my request to recuse.[73] As clerk, can you refer my request to the Committee? I'm trying to conserve my words. Lightbreather (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, your statement extension request has been declined. The Committee has directed that I indicate clearly that the evidence phase may be used to submit a longer file of evidence. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. Then I respectfully request that I have until Monday afternoon - say 19:00 UTC - to finish trimming and adding to my statement. Afterall, this is a record of the first step in what could be - if it goes forward as Karanacs proposed - a Lightbreather v. 7 Named But "Uninvolved" Parties - plus their Wikifriends. It is the birthday weekend of a direct family member, and I'd like not to have to spend all of it on this RFAR. (I've been working this morning on evidence about the last 2 of 8 editors whom I have suggested are involved, but my family is rousing from their beds so I'll be leaving my office soon.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Both of your requests have been referred to the Committee. Please be aware that the Committee has already authorized the clerks to open the case at 17:52 UTC today, so if the Committee declines your latter request, the case will open at 17:52 UTC. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

An arbitrator has directed that I open the case and also has directed that I remind you that as the case request has been accepted, there's no need to be adding more material to the case request page., and that if you wish to add additional material they can do it in /Evidence. If there's additional parties they think should be here too, they can make their argument for this at /Evidence too, as parties can be added or removed from a case at any time. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, that was me. Adding to the above, the case request stage is really to determine if there is a case, and if so what its general scope might be. The /Evidence stage is the best place to really get into the detail on individual parties. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lightbreather. I'm going to be one of the drafters. I've asked that the case dates (Workshop and Proposed decision) hinge around when we can get a 2nd drafter as I believe that there should be more than one drafter. I've come here to say that we had an extensive discussion about your recusal request, but that there has been no consensus that Salvio should recuse. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The proposed decision in this case will be that Salvio be desysopped. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

SPI

~~I have opened a sockpuppet investigation, as I believe Felsic to be your sockpuppet. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)~~

Sheesh. Responded there. Ignore it, Lb. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Based on the evidence that GRuban presented here, it appears I was incorrect. My apologies. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI

This edit [74] caught my attention. Seeing it involves you, do what you like with it I don't feel like getting myself involved with the evidence phase. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Interaction bans and the ArbCom case

Here is what I am telling editors who have an interaction ban with you (note that I might not finish this tonight as real life is occurring):

Editors banned from interacting with Lightbreather are reminded that the banning policy states that:

"if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:reply to editor Y in discussions or make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere onWikipedia, whether directly or indirectly".

This includes case talk pages. However, while the Committee allows editors some leeway to respond to statements about them on the evidence and workshop case pages, they may not participate in the case except to respond with statements about allegations that have been made about them and may not make direct communication. Such statements that they do make must be brief, to the point, and civil. Editors with interaction bans who fail to comply with the letter or spirit of this very limited exemption will be treated as though they breached the interaction ban.

This also applies to you, so I need to ask you to revise some of your evidence. If another editor (eg Karanacs) with whom you do not have an iban raises an issue concerning one of the editors with whom you do have an iban, you can of course respond to that. But you should not be submitting evidence about them directly, nor should they. Can I also remind you that if you wish to complain about violations of an iban, that WP:BANEX says you can ask "an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation)." Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Karanacs led her preliminary statement with links to my ibans and requests for ibans.[75] They're the backbone of her case that I'm a "battleground" editor. They were presented, essentially, as diffs, which "may be relied upon by arbitrators when drafting the proposed decision."[76] Can you please discuss this with the other arbitrators? Since I am the sole "defendant" in this case, gagging me this way hardly seems fair. I can't defend myself without addressing - in the appropriate place: the evidence page - the behaviors of others who contributed to the arrival of this case. Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I also mentioned these editors in my preliminary statement, without being notified of objections by an arb or clerk. Lightbreather (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather You were duly notified yesterday and despite the notification you went on to post excessively detailed material about a mutually i-banned editor on the case talk page. We expect you to conduct yourself in the accordance with WP:BANEX and continued breaches of it may result in sanctions. Roger Davies ^talk 07:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Roger beat me to it. I cannot understand why you would do this after being notified. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller I have to agree with LB on this point. The iBans themselves are being used as evidence against LB, she should be permitted to discuss (within reason) the circumstances that led to those ibans. Obviously this is a risky proposition for LB though, as rehashing old arguments could itself be seens as evidence of the battleground. A narrow path for her to weave, but she should be allowed to try. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, (this is also relevant for Lightbreather) this is how the applicable site policy (WP:BANEX) applies to this case. Karanacs (who is not i-banned) has posted material about Lightbreather in the case request and on the evidence page. Lightbreather may directly rebut Karanacs'evidence by posting on the /Evidence page. That may involve commenting on i-banned editors if they have been mentioned by Karanacs. Such rebuttals need to be succinct, to the point, and use links instead of direct quotes. Any i-banned editor who is mentioned in Lightbreather's rebuttal may, in turn, rebut the allegations made by Lightbreather, but only on the /Evidence page. Commentary about mutually i-banned editors on talk pages is explicitly prohibited. Thus, everyone gets a full opportunity to rebut allegations. But no one gets the opportunity to raise dozens of interesting new issues. No one gets the opportunity to launch ad hominem attacks, cast aspersions and what not, or engage in slanging matches. What's not to like? Roger Davies ^talk 07:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidence length

Hi, Lightbreather. The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence by parties be kept to around 1000 words and 100 diffs. Your presentation is over 2700 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I did ask, on May 5.[77] Can you remind the arbs, please? Lightbreather (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I have trimmed and trimmed it, and I cannot trim any more. Lightbreather (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, your request was not granted. You are free to ask again on the evidence talk page. In the meantime, your evidence is at 270% of the limit; please trim it. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I just had a little rest, and I'll give it one more try, though I don't believe I can put up a proper defense in 1000 words. Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)