Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions		10 May 2024	0/4/0

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024
Mzajac	7 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Ryulong	Motion	none	29 January 2015
Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling	none	(orig. case)	25 January 2015
Amendment request: Interactions at GGTF	none	(orig. case)	1 February 2015

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

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.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126

Amendment request: Ryulong

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)

The remedy "Mythdon further restricted (4 August 2009)" is revoked. Mythdon is instead restricted as follows for the longer of one year or 500 edits. If, in the opinion of any uninvolved administrator, Mythdon: a) behaves disruptively at XFD discussions;

b) unreasonably nominates multiple articles for deletion; or

c) unreasonably places maintenance tags on multiple articles;

then Mythdon may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

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)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

---

Clarification request: Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

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)

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)

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

$Community>Policy>ArbCom>AEdecisions$

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 issuesGaijin42 (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)

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)

Amendment request: Interactions at GGTF

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: [37][38]

Statement by Hell in a Bucket

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 [[39]] 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 [[40]] 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 [[41]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes we've already had this complaint [[42]]. 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 [[43]], another admin [[44]], another admin endorsing the spi [[45]], and another [[46]] 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 [[47]] 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 [[48]]. Before you get too wound up, please also see [[49]] 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 [[50]] 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 [[51]] and then the follow up warning from our current arb User:Euryalus found [[52]] 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 [[53]] and [[54]]. 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 [[55]]. 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 [[56]] User:Lightbreather lies again [[57]], 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)

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)

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,
• [58] 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)

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)

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.[59] 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.[60]

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.[61] Your vendetta against Sue Rangell is apparently based on this[62], 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.[63] 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 [64] 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.[65] 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.[66] 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.[67] She attempted again by supporting a filing by Rationalobserver three days later.[68] Her current comments about him at Requests/Clarification and Amendment[69] 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 link you added just now to your diffs[70], does this mean that because I was open about sending email and you aren't, that this is my bad? EChastain (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 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 - TP 23:31, 4 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)

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)
• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

---