User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 22

Kaffeeklatsch update
I have archived the Kaffeeklatsch discussions that were here. All the brouhaha had died down. If it fires up again in the future, I'll take care of it then. Lightbreather (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Human self-reflection needed

 * A member of this committee has closed the SPI that I opened, commenting that the evidence was "vastly insufficient to support a sockpuppetry claim." [35] Part of the reason that I presented my evidence there is that I thought it quite convincing. I respectfully ask the whole committee to consider the evidence, rather than have the decision made by one arbitrator, whose answer at SPI indicates that they have already made up their mind about me.

Lightbreather, I don't think you are stupid or incompetent, but this comment tells me you should stay away from Wikipedia for a while. Seven different editors commented on the quality of the evidence you offered at the SPI and all agreed that it was quite possibly the worst evidence they had ever seen in the history of SPI. For you to think this lack of evidence is "quite convincing" tells me you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evidence is in this context and how it works. If you would like to correct your error, I would recommend finding a checkuser you trust and have them walk you through the entire process. That would be a good way for you to learn why what you think is "quite convincing" is in fact, non-evidence. Other heuristics that will greatly help improve your thinking include Occam's razor and the concept of falsifiability. There's also the general idea of a "sniff test", which Wiktionary defines as "an informal reality check of an idea or proposal, using one's common sense or sense of propriety". I don't think you lack common sense or propriety, but you do seem to get carried away in the moment and do things without thinking them through. Next time, take a deep breath, apply Occam's razor, attempt to falsify your hypothesis, and sniff it (metaphorically speaking) for soundness. If you had truly done this, you would have never proposed the SPI in the first place. Try not to act on every thought that comes into your head. Remember, humans have a reputation for excelling at pattern recognition. Erroneous pattern matching can often be categorized as Type I and type II errors. In your favor, Michael Shermer argues that there are survival benefits to forming beliefs based on erroneous pattern matching. The point is to know when your brain is doing this and to filter accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It was already proved last night that at least one editor whom I have suspected of being a sock is a sock. I didn't slap my evidence together; it took a lot of time. And no-one has given details about why the evidence that I gave for Gaijin42/Godsy is "insufficient"[38] or not "solid" enough.

Lightbreather, you suspected EChastain of being Sue Rangell, but the account was blocked for being a likely sock of Mattisse not Sue Rangell. As for your evidence, many editors on the SPI gave you explicit details why your evidence against Godsy and Gaijin was insufficient, so your claim that they didn't is quite disturbing. Here are five diffs from one user alone giving you explicit details. If you continue to engage in this kind of denial you're probably going to end up banned. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, please stay off my talk page now. Lightbreather (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements
Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in
Hello!

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


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

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

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of 10:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * , I don't think you got my last communique about this. A year ago or more I had a personal, trial membership. When I cancelled that I actually cancelled my Wikipedia account instead. Can I get it back, because now I have neither. Lightbreather (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Any personal trial membership is completely separate then the free one which was provided. Even the Wikipedia ones are completely separate between codes and require signing up again, from scratch, and cannot be kept or extended from even prior free memberships. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Continuing the SPI on the case talk page
I'd like you to remove that please, it's completely inappropriate. You need to follow Roger's advice or drop it, but not use the talk page to continue pressing it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To what are you referring? Lightbreather (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My responses to ? If Gaijin42 removes his remarks about the SPI, I will be happy to remove my replies to his remarks. Or maybe he could move them to the evidence page, so I may rebut them there? Lightbreather (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to everything from "@Gaijin42: My evidence against you includes" to " case will consider my response to you and read that SPI." specifically. Re-raising your SPI on the talk page is inappropriate. Commenting on that SPI is not the same thing. Dougweller (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller: At 23:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC), after my SPI was closed by a lone member of the committee, I asked the committee to consider reviewing the evidence as part of the case. Roger Davies gave an ambiguous answer. After EChastain was found to be a sock, I asked Euryalus if he would object to the committee reviewing the SPI. Gaijin42's comments about the SPI at 19:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC) were after all of the above, and I've still seen no evidence that the committee together has discussed my request.


 * I respectfully ask again that the committee discuss letting the SPI stay. The foci/loci of dispute with me and these other editors are gun control and GGTF/gender. If the committee decides that the SPI will not be considered and if Gaijin42 deletes the comments he made about the SPI at/after 19:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC), then I will delete my replies to him. If his comments are to stand, they should be moved to the evidence page. Lightbreather (talk) 18:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Roger is a co-drafter and we agree on this. I'm going to hat it now. Dougweller (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe others have already entered the SPI and your comments about it into evidence, so it doesn't make much sense for me to duplicate it. However, that does seem like the opportunity is already there for you to rebut that evidence by others (assuming your space permits). Ill strike the portion that specifically critiques the evidence you raised, but not the rest of the commentary. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gaijin, there is a paragraph at the top of the evidence talk page that begins in big, bold letters: Behaviour on this page. I believe every post I've made on that page has honored the expectations spelled out in that paragraph. Where do your comments like, In light of the SPI filed against me, I guess whatever detente LB and I had achieved was illusory, and In addition to being a) wrong, b) wasting your limited space, c) (perhaps more importantly) wasting everyone's patience - I'm not sure what you think you are going to get out of pursuing this godsy thing so aggressively fall in relation to page expectations?


 * I respectfully ask that if you have a beef with me, take it to the evidence page and provide diffs, otherwise, delete your evidence talk-page comments as they are contrary to case-page behavioral guidelines. Lightbreather (talk) 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I respectfully decline. I didn't have a beef with you. I submitted evidence in support of you (including your EChastain accusation, and a defense against the second socking accusation during the GGTF case) I also supported your request regarding the iBans in evidence.


 * For the past several months we have gotten along fine, and had several pleasant exchanges. I spent a decent amount of time working with you to clean up your google-footprint a while ago. In spite of this, you apparently have a beef with me, regarding a content dispute that happened a year and a half ago, and that I am already sanctioned for.


 * I mentioned the change in situation ("illusory") as commenting on why I added additional evidence - I had refrained out of respect for our (then) improved relationship. The second bit ("in addition") is not "evidence" against you, nor a rebuttal, its merely a comment that I don't see the point of what you are doing, since even if you were proven correct on that point, it doesn't materially improve your situation.


 * Do you really not see how you are piling the wood at your own pyre here? One of the main accusations against you are that you carry grudges/vendettas, and that you don't drop the stick. Even if 100% of the evidence was somehow excluded, your conduct during this case proves the allegations against you admirably.


 * Seriously, file an SPI, whatever - I've filed dozens, and I understand your paranoia, especially in light of our original interactions. But when many-multiple editors, admins, and arbs tell you "this is not sufficient", to appeal it 2,3,4,5,6 times - it only proves that the only opinion you value is your own.


 * Again, for the record, I am not Godsy. He may or may not be someone's sock, but it isn't mine. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I spent a decent amount of time working with you to clean up your google-footprint a while ago. Yes you did, and I thanked you. However, when I said that a tech-savvy third party was messing with me, and that it might even be you, you said you weren't offended that I might suspect you.


 * Now that you've shared the google-footprint thing and I've shared this third-party thing, I'd like no more mention of our private discussions. Lightbreather (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed some of your evidence
Hi Lightbreather. At the Arbitration Committee's direction, I have removed certain parts of your evidence. You are instructed to not reinstate any content removed without the permission of an arbitrator or clerk, and you are further instructed to not mention the Gaijin42 SPI. You may appeal this by email to the clerks or the arbitrators. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 19:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What email address do I use for the arbitrators? functionaries-en or ? Lightbreather (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you wish to email the arbitrators and explicitly not the clerks, is the one to email. Thanks, --L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 00:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there one that goes to arbcom and clerks? Is that functionaries-en? Lightbreather (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Clerks-l goes to all current arbitrators, all current clerks, and some former arbitrators. Hope that answers your question, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 03:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's been brought to my attention on the clerks-l list that I was wrong to direct you to email there. It is possible that another clerk or arbitrator may soon request that you post to the /Evidence talk page instead. My apologies. Thank you. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Lightbreather, in light of the removal of this material, I have recalculated your evidence word count which has been significantly reduced but is still over the limit. It would help if you only included one signature in your comments, at the end of your section. Since the evidence will all be read at same time, it is not crucial for the arbitrators to know when you added which sections of your statement. Liz  Read! Talk! 20:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lightbreather (talk) 23:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

off-wiki harassment
That's disgusting. Are you aware of metawikipedia:Grants:IdeaLab/Community discussion on harassment reporting? Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Lightbreather/sandbox/Vigilantism
User:Lightbreather/sandbox/Vigilantism, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lightbreather/sandbox/Vigilantism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Lightbreather/sandbox/Vigilantism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Esquivalience t 02:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Workshop
I don't see my name on your list at the workshop. I'm going to be open with you and let you know that I intend to propose findings of fact and remedies that you will not like. Not sure if that changes things for you. Faceless Enemy (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also intend to propose remedies that you would not like. If you have evidence that I am a sockpuppet of another user (you didn't make your suspicion obvious), you have every right to open a SPI; else you're just casting aspersions, even though I merely proposed one of your user pages at Miscellany for deletion, and citing relevant policy. Esquivalience t 20:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

ips, SPIs, and outing
Here are two conversations I coincidentally had in the past about ips, SPIs, and outing that may be of interest to you in terms of what is or is not outing. Its not directly on point, as its more about with in article space and not administrative boards, but it does have some relevance  Gaijin42 (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The most relevant bit I think is from the conversation with that reads "When I'm connecting an IP to a registered account, I'm using my best guess and no technical proof, but it isn't for the purpose of outing them, it is to prevent future abuse. In those cases, they are really outing themselves by choosing to abuse the system while logged out in a way that make it obvious it is them. But again, it is done in the right venue, and not just a random statement on a talk page" - The core issue seems to be if an arbcom page qualifies as "the right venue" or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth noting that none of the arbs or clerks removed the post linking the two or in any other way (that I saw) commented that its location might be inappropriate. There was a suggestion that it would be better suited for SPI, but that's different than saying "this was wrong, don't do that".  Given that Lightbreather was sanctioned for her behavior and no admin has suggested that HiaB should be sanctioned for linking the accounts, accusations that he outed her or that he acted in any other way inappropriately are wrong, and continuing to post them is a personal attack, or, to be more specific, is casting (invalid) aspersions. Karanacs (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Karanacs, first I have to be careful because of my iban, so I'll have to say "No comment" to some of your points, but I do have a question. Are you saying that if an editor has broken a rule (whether they meant to or not), then it's OK to identify private information about them? Lightbreather (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies - I wasn't thinking or I would have refrained from bringing up the iban stuff. The leeway on the Arbcom stuff confused me.  I am saying that if an editor was socking on project pages by editing logged out (rather than editing logged out by accident), then it is not outing at all.  The editor chose to give up their privacy. Karanacs (talk) 00:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Karanacs. All I can say is I've lost count of how many times I've read Editing while logged out and Posting of personal information since November 24, but I'm just not seeing how they add up to what you're saying. If what you say is true, I think those policies should be edited to make that clear. I won't pursue this legally, but I could see some people doing such a thing. Honestly, short of someone threatening someone else's life or property, I don't know if WMF legal would agree that it's OK to out someone's personal info, including their IP address.


 * Further, if IPs aren't supposed to participate at ArbCom, why were so many allowed (over a dozen, I believe) at the GGTF ArbCom? And why was I the only one to be investigated? For heaven's sake, if IPs aren't supposed to participate at ArbCom, why not just protect ArbCom pages and save everyone some stress? Lightbreather (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And here's one I hadn't thought of before. Aren't blocks supposed to be preventative, not punitive? I'd stopped editing while logged out on November 25, but I was blocked on November 30. What was being prevented? I hadn't vandalized anything or attacked anyone. (I realize it doesn't matter anymore, but I've got time to sit and contemplate these things now.) Lightbreather (talk) 23:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Gaijin42, I can't imagine arbcom would always be the right venue, but in this case I think it's appropriate. However, it doesn't really matter, because I have retired. I'm just hanging around until the case is closed, in case an arb or clerk asks me something. Lightbreather (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If we were talking about edit warring or something, probably not. When we are specifically talking about socking, and all of the relevant information (just add intuition) is on wiki, and even raising the question of suspected socking reveals the info? Yes. Also one additional note the SPI/CU page specifically says that for suspected socking during an arb case, to raise the issue in the case pages "Question about a possible sock puppet related to an open arbitration case - Request on the arbitration case pages that a checkuser be run." what was being prevented was the ongoing socking. I buy that you initially were not aware you were breaking the rules. But once confronted and presented with the rules you doubled down. you were already "outed" at that point, so the equivication didn't buy you anything except trouble.

If arbcom was an acceptable venue, then doesn't that invalidate your argument that it was inappropriate outing?Gaijin42 (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood you there. I thought you were talking about my mentioning outing in the current arbcom. The other arbcom? What Callanecc said. Lightbreather (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As for doubling-down, that's one way to look at it. But when I responded to the SPI notice I had already sent email to a checkuser and Oversight, and I still had some small hope of discussing the situation privately. I honestly thought some functionary would explain whether I had or had not truly broken a rule, and warn or sanction me if necessary - without officially connecting my IP address to my username. In hindsight, it was a hopelessly optimistic notion. Lightbreather (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Finally, what was being prevented was the ongoing socking. The socking wasn't ongoing; it had stopped five days previously. Lightbreather (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is, of course, your call whether to post your detailed explanation of the socking block. But I would recommend that you do. Otherwise the only detailed explanation will be provided by those who don't like you. I think Michael Dukakis found out that turns out badly. (And I have just lost all the readers of this page not interested in the politics of a certain country or below a certain age, but I believe you share those factors with me... :-)) --GRuban (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I won't risk it here, because of my iban, and I really don't want to post it at the ArbCom, either. If you want to copy the info and do with it what you will, in good-faith, fine, but make sure it's your post and not mine. Lightbreather (talk) 01:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And think long and hard about it, too. Seriously. Helping me is risky business for WP editors. Lightbreather (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't, not for it to have meaning. The whole value of the piece is "this is Lightbreather's explanation". If I have to post it as my own, then ... how the heck can I testify as to what your intentions were? Ah, I know. I can return to my comment that I too am secretly one of your socks.... unfortunately that becomes less funny the third time. ;-( I am fairly sure that it is not an IBan violation in the arbcom case, as, first, it's about you, not about anyone else, second those are specifically lifted for the case, and third, it's not an attack against anyone; it's not even an exoneration, it is merely an explanation. And I think it is needed. Remember, the goal here isn't to rehash the past, or to tar anyone else, or to exculpate you completely. Those trains have left. It's to keep you from being banned. I'm not the most diligent reader of the Arbcom mind, but I'm guessing that's not out of the question right now. --GRuban (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

responding to the "not seeing it in the policies" comment above - Not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I think there are several portions of the policy(s) you may be overlooking.
 * Using an alternative account in a discussion about another account operated by the same person. (you commented about yourself)
 * it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions (self explanatory?)
 * Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts (you contributed evidence as LB)
 * Undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project (which you were not aware of, but you say you don't see it when you read it now either)
 * Clean-start accounts should not return to old topic areas or disputes, editing patterns, or behavior previously identified as problematic, and should be careful not to do anything that looks like an attempt to evade scrutiny.
 * Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy (partial match on the equivocation, but matches several of the illegit points)
 * The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust. It is likely to lead to:on-project exposure of all accounts and IP addresses used across Wikipedia

As to GRubans point about trains having left, ironically the harassment against you may have helped you sufficiently to avoid a ban. Prior to that blow up I would have put good money on the end result being a ban, especially after your beating the dead horse accusing me of socking. But now, its a reasonable POV that your flaws were caused by undue stress from harassment. But an honest acknowledgement of where you have gone wrong is crucial. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC) Gaijin42 (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You say you're not trying to beat a dead horse, but you are. I edited while logged out, and for that I was blocked for a week for abusing multiple accounts. At the time that I edited while logged out, I believed that it was OK, for several reasons that I've given before but won't go into again. (Discussions in this archive will help if anyone wants to slog through them.) I was blocked for something I did, I served my time. My block was extended for another week for something I didn't do, and I served time for that, too. That's over and done.


 * The not-seeing-it comment wasn't about my block. It was about whether or not any person who breaks a rule (whether they knew they were or not) by editing while logged out forfeits their right to privacy. What I said to Karanacs is that I see nothing on the "Editing while logged out" section of the WP:SOCK policy, or anything in the "Posting of personal information" section of the WP:HARASSMENT policy, that supports that. That is probably why Callanecc said during the GGTF ArbCom, if you have evidence (of IP editors being logged-out editors), please email it. Would emailing the evidence prevent the editor from being blocked if they had done something wrong? No.


 * The one exception I can think of would be if an editor posted, while logged in, "My IP address is 01.234.56.789" - and leaving that post un-revdeled. I believe editing while logged-out - on purpose or not - is not the same thing. However, if on Wikipedia editing while logged out is the same as explicitly connecting your username to your IP address, then that probably out to be spelled out in policy. Lightbreather (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * the last bullet point in the section you collapsed covers that I think, but could be more strongly worded. Its also covered in the quote from the discussion with Dennis (although I certainly admit that a conversation is not policy, but it does show that it is the standard understanding of the policy). Gaijin42 (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban with Scalhotrod
Due to your recent inappropriate interactions with Scalhotrod, stemming from the edits made to the National Rifle Association, I am placing both of you under a mutual interaction ban under the authority of the discretionary sanctions authorised in the Gun Control arbitration case. You may interact with Scalhotrod only on the Lightbreather arbitration case, and only according to the conditions laid out at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. This sanction will last indefinitely, and is placed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator not as an arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Which of my interactions was inappropriate? Could I get a diff? Lightbreather (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Principally your back and forth at Ownership of articles. It is not so much a single edit by either of you, but the tone of your interactions which are not conducive to improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you please make this a 1-way? Evidence has shown over and over again that he is the one who hounds me, not the other way around. Lightbreather (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The short answer is no. I believe that a one-way interaction ban would not be in the interests of the encyclopaedia at this point in time. This is based on a combination of your behaviour, contributions, and the public and private evidence submitted by all parties to the arbitration case. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please email me copies of evidence sent privately about me. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, would you be open to someone reviewing the ban - someone who hasn't already made up their mind about me, I mean? Lightbreather (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All remedies imposed as discretionary sanctions can be appealed at WP:AE. Thryduulf (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been told this by email, but for the public record the relevant private information I considered was the evidence you submitted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Block Notice
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring at National Rifle Association. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Mike V • Talk 22:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Workshop
Hi,. Does the workshop end at the beginning of June 7 or the end? Lightbreather (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Chiming in here because I saw this: case phases ordinarily close at 23:59 (UTC) of the day scheduled to, so in answer to your question, the end of June 7. Of course, it is up to the discretion of the drafting arbitrators whether to even close on the day of, and clerks are not supposed to close phases, even when scheduled, without the authorization of a drafting arbitrator. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 17:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * When deciding how strictly the end of workshop deadline is to be treated the drafters (sometimes with input from the rest of the Committee) take into consideration things including how productive the workshop has been, whether there is any ongoing productive discussion, how close to a proposed decision the drafters are, and any reasons we are aware of that might have prevented a party taking part to the extent they want to. In this specific case, the workshop end date has not been the subject of significant discussion among the committee as a whole and I am not aware how strictly the drafters intend to treat the deadline so it is best to assume that it will close on schedule at 23:59 7 June (UTC). Thryduulf (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Temporary injunction at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed decision
The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, which supersedes all other provisions:

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 17:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Drawing from previously presented evidence
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop&diff=665817069&oldid=665816306 this comment]: you will see from previous cases that the findings in the final decision refer to sections and diffs from the Evidence page, or diffs that have already been presented on the Evidence page. This is what is meant by the proposals flow from matters in evidence. isaacl (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours
For this rather blatant violation of the temporary injunction, I have blocked you for 72 hours. This block may only be lifted with the positive consent of the Arbitration Committee. The clause you violated was "They may comment on allegations of off-wiki misconduct only by email and such emails must be directed only to the Arbitration Committee." Courcelles (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've read that temporary injunction notice three or four times now, and I did not violate it. What gives? Lightbreather (talk) 23:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how "They may comment on allegations of off-wiki misconduct only by email and such emails must be directed only to the Arbitration Committee." could be clearer. Your edit summary and your edit clearly mentioned off-wiki conduct on-wiki, which you were quite explicitly told not to do. Courcelles (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since to discuss this any further does wander into "commenting on allegations," I have sent an email. However, to reiterate, my edits did NOT comment on allegations of off-wiki misconduct. Lightbreather (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And all of the edits that I worked on have been revdeled? WTH? How is that fair? Lightbreather (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Only the edit in question was removed, the rest of your edits remain. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

FOR THE RECORD: I did NOT "comment on allegations of off-wiki misconduct." I made a Proposed finding of fact, very similar to what Mike V did on 24 May 2015, although mine was much briefer: one sentence of six words. Would someone please revdel Mike V's proposal? Lightbreather (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You made an allegation of off-wiki misconduct, which in the unanimous opinion of at least 5 arbitrators clearly constituted discussing off-wiki misconduct. Mike V is not subject to any injunctions, and his proposal does not meet any criteria for revision deletion.
 * On a separate note, your emails to the committee have been received. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * There are 15 arbitrators on my case. The injunction was not against making a proposed finding of fact. And a proposed finding of fact is not the same as an allegation (typically made without proof), nor is a proposed finding of fact the same as a comment on an allegation. Lightbreather (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are appealing your ban. The injunction clearly states that appeals must be made to the Arbitation Committee by email only. Any more and you will lose your talk page access for the duration of your block. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just noting that I've logged the block at the case page. L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 04:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

untitled
You do fine work and gives us all courage.Kmccook (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

User page
I've deleted it per WP:CSD, but note that due to a semi-recent change, local wikis now shows one's Meta user page if one exists and there is no local user page. Right now, your meta user page is a redirect to your en.wiki page - which isn't here anymore. To avoid confusion, you should either request an admin on meta delete that user page too, or you should update it. I think I've got all the other U1's you've done; let me know if you find others. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For example, I don't know if you know about Special:PrefixIndex (ignore me if you do). You still have the following subpages, which I am not deleting because you haven't marked them, but I will delete if you want: . --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you would delete everything but Lightbreather/Barnstars (for now) that would be great. I will be retiring when my arbcom case is closed. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've deleted everything in your user space, except this page (which can't be deleted) and your talk page archives. Since you created the archives by copy/paste instead of page moving, I can also delete those if you want, but people have traditionally left them.  Your call. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Leave the archives. And thanks for your help. Lightbreather (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours
For this violation of the temporary injunction, I have blocked you for 72 hours. This block may only be lifted with the positive consent of the Arbitration Committee. The clause you violated was "They may comment on each other only on matters directly affecting this case and only on the relevant Workshop or Arbitration case talk pages." GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding my block, I'm not going to fight it, but what I asked on the arbcom proposed decision talk page was related to this case. Regarding the removal of this post -  - has there ever been this kind of injunction imposed before? What I posted was an example of the harassment I'm undergoing, but it identifies no-one (the sender(s) used bogus info). BTW: I am emailing you a screen shot of the messages themselves. Lightbreather (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for violating interaction ban
For this breach of your mutual interaction ban with User:Hell in a Bucket you have been blocked for 48 hours.

For the avoidance of doubt, the case management procedures at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence explicitly did not suspend the interaction bans, or allow tolerance of breaches, on the proposed decision talk page.

As this violation of the topic ban occurred on an arbitration case page and was made in the context of a different active arbitration case request it may be appealed only by email to the Arbitration Committee. As you have misused your talk page during previous recent blocks when appeal was allowed only by email, I have pre-emptively removed your talk page access until the block expires. This may also be appealed only by email to the Arbitration Committee. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Technology
Hello! Since you expressed interested in WikiProject Women in Technology, I am pleased to say that the new membership feature is online. If you would like to be listed as a member of the WikiProject, simply go to WikiProject Women in Technology/Members, click on "Join WikiProject", and follow the prompts. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, Harej (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted
Hi Lightbreather, in the open Lightbreather arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

As someone that's been sexually harassed, your input is welcome
Sexual_harassment

You might have something important to contribute in what little time you have left on this site. --ScWizard (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case closed
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


 * 1)  is site-banned. She may request reconsideration of the ban no earlier than one year after it is enacted.
 * 2)  is indefinitely topic-banned from the Gun control topic, broadly construed.
 * 3)  is restricted to editing from one account. She must obtain the Committee's prior approval if she wishes to edit from a different account. She is prohibited from making edits without logging in.
 * 4) Subject to the usual exceptions, Lightbreather is prohibited from making any more than one revert to any page, except Lightbreather's own user space, in any 24-hour period.
 * 5)  is restricted to editing articles, their talk pages, and Lightbreather's user and user talk pages. Further, she may not edit articles in topics from which she is banned. She may post elsewhere only to respond to unambiguous criticism of her in dispute resolution fora. The default interaction-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. Should Lightbreather wish to initiate action against any user for whatever reason she may do so only by email to the Arbitration Committee.
 * 6) All interactions bans (i-bans) affecting Lightbreather are taken over by the Arbitration Committee and placed under the committee's direct jurisdiction. The default i-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. For consistency and ease of administration, the i-bans may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action but any resultant appeals may be made only to the committee and only by email. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph applies to the following interaction bans:
 * 7) Mike Searson (one-way)
 * 8) Hell in a Bucket (two-way)
 * 9) Eric Corbett (two-way)
 * 10) Sitush (one-way)
 * 11) Scalhotrod (two-way)
 * 12)  The community is invited to create and maintain a page containing practical advice and guidance on dealing with serious harassment.
 * 13) The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on improved trust and safety policies for the site.,  and the community is urged to offer what assistance it can.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard