Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer/Workshop


 * Please note that User:Lightbringer has since been renamed to User:Lightbringer (usurped - blocked). User:LightBringer is unrelated to the subject of this case.

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:

Statement by MSJapan
I would like to see Lightbringer blocked from editing Freemasonry, Anti-Freemasonry, and any other Freemasonry-related articles on Wikipedia.

He actively seeks to skew the Freemasonry article in a negative direction by use of unverifiable, unscholarly, or policy violating links and edits, as shown in the evidence (still in progress). When he is challenged by the majority of the editors, his reply is that we are pushing a "Pro-Masonry POV", and has then resorted to personal attacks on editors and Arbitrators both in edits and discussion. He has accused individuals of being Masons simply because they follow policy.

This situation makes it nearly impossible to make even minor changes on the page (which are sorely needed as it is overly long), because Lightbrnger cries "POV" and reverts the page, most notably in the criticism section (see evidence) when it is clear that I summarized and shrank the section in light of the same information being duplicated on Anti-Freemasonry by consensus.

The same issues of unsubstantiated edits have popped up on other articles tangentially related to Freemasonry. Thus, it is not so much an isolated incident as it is a systematic problem with Freemaonry related articles. The quality of these articles can never be improved as long as Lightbringer has the ability to edit them. MSJapan 02:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Lightbringer
This complaint is the latest in a series of spurious actions against me by a group of Pro-Masonry P.O.V. editors who seek to completely monopolize the Freemasonry entry on Wikipedia. They delete links and critical paragraphs in an arbitrary manner.

The First two thirds of the Freemasonry page are pro-masonic and largely consist of material apparently removed from Masonic websites. The last third, or quarter of the article are criticisms, and within the criticisms are a healthy rebuttal by the pro-masonic crowd. The links section is again two thirds pro, one third critical.

I seek a balanced article and I believe we have one there at the moment I write these words 10:35, 17 October 2005.

We had a freeze on the page, a cooling off period. Once the period ended the same cast of characters began deleting all of the links and entries like they had done previously. I tried my best to revert the article to it's previous state but was simply outnumbered by the Masonic editors.

I recommend you freeze the page at the point I indicated above which will provide your readers a balanced and interesting article.Lightbringer 11:51, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Temporary editing restrictions
1) Based on his history of bad-faith reverts, is prohibited from editing  until a final decision is made in this case.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This was requested by, see . Lightbringer has been blocked for 3RR on this article at least once .  He has reverted 3 times in 24 hours since his last 3RR block expired, and his reverts characterize edits he disagrees with as "vandalism"  .  Dmcdevit appears to have no interest in the article. Kelly Martin 11:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I feel this is entirely inadequate, as several other users have contributed substantially to the edit-warring behavior. (See comment below). Eaglizard 19:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Temporary editing restrictions
2) Based on their history of reverting with respect to articles relating to freemasonry,, , , , , , , , and are banned from editing articles which relate to freemasonry pending a decision in this matter.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Lightbringer is definitely a POV edit warrior, but takes two hands to clap. Fred Bauder 22:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with this. We may want to consider whether  should be added.  (The nail that pops up is likely to get hit with the hammer...) Kelly Martin 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Does that mean my edit history is ok, or just that I slipped by under the radar? I don't want to mess the process up... --SarekOfVulcan 22:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd rather pop up here than get slapped down elsewhere. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 23:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * I feel that this list is flawed, as it both leaves out some, and includes unneeded others. As per Fred Bauder, it takes two (or more) to tango; in this instance User:MSJapan and User:DreamGuy have both been willing partners of Lightbringer. Since I feel strongly that blocking should be only for cases of behaviorial and not content concern, all users who have behaved disruptively should be listed (with the regrettable inclusion of User:Spinboy, despite obvious good-faith). However, I can see no evidence presented that User: Jachin has been involved in the warring (nor should User: SarekOfVulcan be considered). Additionally, it should be noted that User:XDev is almost certainly a sockpuppet of User:Lightbringer, and User:Victrix may be MSJapan operating under a different account (see [|this comment], in Talk: Freemasonry, where Victrix appears to respond for MSJapan in the first person). --Eaglizard 19:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * While Victrix is a fairly new user, hir edits were initially unrelated to the current edit war, so I'm leaning away from the sockpuppet theory. --SarekOfVulcan 21:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (signed belatedly)
 * Funnily enough, I was asked to comment on this by Eaglizard on the Talk page (see quote referenced above). For the record, my IP that I have consistently used is a 209.6.*.* IP, Victrix was 211.*.*.*, I have neither the desire nor the means to circumvent the block I was put under, and I resent the accusation being made at all, especially publically, with no supporting evidence, in such circumstances that the accuser needs to qualify the accusation with a may.  I asked User:Fvm aboout the block, and while I felt that it was unfair based on the diffs he sent as proof, I abided by it. MSJapan 02:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A short clarification: MSJapan, I did not intend to accuse you of "sockpuppetry", only to suggest you might be using multiple accounts, which is (afaik) completely within policy, and permissable. I intentionally used the term 'sockpuppet' only in re: User: Lightbringer, but I can see now how the juxtaposition seems to imply I'm making two allegations in a row. But no accusation was intended, and I apologize for any appearance of same. My only concern is the effectiveness of this list, not my personal opinion of whether any parties have committed any supposed violations (which seems particularly pointless in light of IAR). Eaglizard 05:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I feel this proposal is probably more adequate. At the time of my first request above, I was protecting freemasonry, and therefore only mentioned it. Now, the edit war has certainly spread to other articles, like anti-Freemasonry. I hope that we can get this passed as soon as possible, so protection can be lifted (the page is in bad shape, and currently even cleanup cannot be done). Dmcdevit·t 06:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I just added MSJapan, DreamGuy, and SarekOfVulcan, because, frankly, after just having had an exaustive review of the evidence, I am surprised to see them missing. I am inclined to take Victrix out, as I haven't yet seen evidence of his edit warring, but he may as well just stay in if whoever added him saw reason to. Dmcdevit·t 07:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Am I supposed to stay off the Freemasonry articles as of now, or as of notification on my talk page?--SarekOfVulcan 18:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Obsessional point of view
1) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area. See Neutral point of view. Efforts to establish a particular point of view sometimes results in violations of Verifiability as efforts are made to support an eccentric POV.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Neutral point of view
2) It is a central principle of Wikipedia that articles be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV). The practice of creating a separate article for criticisms and negative information is a violation of NPOV as it results in the main article being written from a sympathetic point of view due to exclusion of critical viewpoints and negative information.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Bite the bullet Fred Bauder 13:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * When you say "bite the bullet", do you mean that we should re-merge the Freemasonry and Anti-Freemasonry articles, despite the length of the Freemasonry article?--SarekOfVulcan 23:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The comment is directed to the other arbitrators. I think we need to tackle this difficult problem. It is also present in the Ultramarine case with Communism, and two versions of Criticisms of communism Fred Bauder 14:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Consensus
3) When editing a controversial article, substantial changes and reverts should only be made when consensus arises through talk page negotiation. Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who are making a good faith effort to work together.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit wars
4) Edit wars are harmful to Wikipedia, particularly if they are substantial enough to lead to page protection, which disrupts normal editting. Reasoned discussion and dispute resolution are the best ways to resolve a dispute.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit summaries
5) Help:Edit summary. Editors should use edit summaries as frequently as possbile, especially in a dispute. When using edit summaries, especially in the midst of a content dispute, accurate portrayal of changes, and especially reverts, is important. The normal rules of civility apply to edit summaries.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Accurate portrayal of changes what? Something like "is essential", I assume. PurplePlatypus Has been fixed since I wrote that.
 * Yes thanks. Dmcdevit·t 09:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

What vandalism is not
6) Per Vandalism, NPOV violations or other content disputes are not vandalism, and should not be characterized as such.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

No personal attacks
7) WP:NPA. A personal attack against a fellow Wikipedian, regardless of perceived provocation, is never acceptable.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Civility
8) WP:CIV. Wikipedia users are expected to behave civilly and calmly in their dealings with other users.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Retaliation
9) Being faced with incivility and edit warring by others does not justify a response in kind (along the lines of Requests_for_arbitration/Xed/Proposed_decision.)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Featured articles
10) Particular care should be taken when making substantial edits to featured articles. As featured articles are by their nature more visible, any edit war or page protection is particularly disruptive and harmful. Freemasonry is a featured article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

3RR and gaming
11) WP:3RR is a useful electric fence to stop an edit war. Violating it is never acceptable. As well, 3RR is not an entitlement to any reverts at all. Gaming the 3RR is disruptive and may result in a block as well.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer's editing
1) "Lightbringer's' primary interest and focus is the subject of Freemasonry and its related topics" which he edits in a critical way with the goal: "will not allow, as is within his ability, Organized Freemasonry to repeat the tactics it has used elsewhere on the internet in the past ten years, to stifle discussion." This focus and goal has resulted at time in aggressive point of view editing including edit warring and use of unverifiable sources. Sometimes perspectives from occult movements that are not a part of freemasonry or allied with it have been included, see Requests_for_arbitration/Lightbringer/Workshop.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

freemasonrywatch.org
2) freemasonrywatch.org contains some useful material, for example this excellent Washington Post article, but the site itself often conflates its few useful links with conspiratorial fantasy, see the link which contains the Hitler quote. Freemasonrywatch.org "Monitoring the Invisible Empire, the World's Largest Secret Society", is listed third among "Top conspiracy sites".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * My thought is that alternative sources must be found if the better material on freemasonrywatch.org is to be used, (usually the source is cited, but in the case of the Washington Post article may not be accessible. Fred Bauder 20:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * There is a typo in the web address as displayed (link is correct). freemasonry.org and freemasonrywatch.org are two different entities. MSJapan 02:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Splitting of the article
3) The article Freemasonry has been split, despite the protests of Lightbringer Requests_for_arbitration/Lightbringer/Workshop, into a main version which takes a sympathetic point of view and an critical article Anti-Freemasonry which contains mainly critical and negative material.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Umm... to a degree, I would reject the term "sympathetic point of view". For the most part, the article is merely encyclopedic, stating its organization, membership requirements, and some of its history.--SarekOfVulcan 15:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some more positive material ought to be added Fred Bauder 15:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. Why would we want to make it "more positive" towards Masonry when you already think it's sympathetic?--SarekOfVulcan 17:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strike that, just found your comment above. Hard to follow the threading on this sometimes. Ummm... I don't really want a Masonry-cheerleading article, you can get those all around the web. Can you suggest parts of this that you feel are unbalanced? Obviously, the founding of UGLE is encyclopedic, since that's what modern Masonry traces from.--SarekOfVulcan 17:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Personal attacks
4) Lightbringer has engaged in personal attacks and been generally hostile ("vandal... shallow Pro-Masonry propagandist hack", "Your a Masonic Propagandist and Vandal MSJapan", "The Masonic Goon patrol," referring to ArbCom, and others many times over) on talk pages as well as in edit summaries ("pro-masonry propagandists", etc.). More examples at Requests_for_arbitration/Lightbringer/Evidence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Misuse of edit summaries
5) Lightbringer has misused edit summaries, even in the article space, to make personal attacks rather than summarize his own edit (see above). He has also abused edit summaries by mischaracterizing NPOV disputes as vandalism (,, , , etc.) as have, to a lesser extent, Spinboy and Jachin. Lightbringer's (,, , etc.) and Grazon's (, , , etc) lack of substantive edit summaries for substantial changes and even reverts is also confusing and/or deceptive.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit warring
6) Lightbringer in particular, as well as many of his opponents, have engaged in massive reversions and edit wars rather than meaningful discussion. A cursory look at the edit history of Freemasonry and now Anti-Freemasonry is ample evidence. Both Lightbringer and MSJapan  have been blocked for 3RR on Freemasonry. Spinboy, XDev, SarekOfVulcan, DreamGuy, and Grazon have all performed multiple reverts within 24 hours, just in October (Freemasonry history, Ant-Freemasonry history). On October 18, Freemasonry had to be protected.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edits against consensus
7) Lightbringer has made many edits against the general consensus of Talk:Freemasonry and other talk pages, especially with regards to the external links, (for example). He has also falsely claimed that his controversial edits were in line with consensus ("Restored links approved by consensus after block. Individuals who deleted this attempted to get poster banned and were rebuked by Wiki Arbitrators for abuse", when there is none)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Violations of temporary injunction
8) On Oct. 30, a day after his temporary injunction banning him from Freemasonry-related articles was passed, Lightbringer violated the injunction and edited Freemasonry to make a revert (with an inflammatory edit summary) . He also made more Freemasonry-related edits, , , , . He was reverted and blocked for 24 hours for th eviolation.
 * Addendum: On Oct. 31, while still under the first 24 hour block, Lightbringer came back as an IP,, to revert the article again . This IP is known to be Lightbringer as it wrote Lightbringer's bio on his user page, and has previously been blocked by David Gerard after it was used for sockpuppeteering . The IP address was blocked for 24 hours by Brian0918.
 * P.S. Then as soon as his next block expired on Nov. 1, Lightbringer violated the injunction ten times in three different articles to continue the revert wars., , , , , , , , , . He was blocked and reverted once again.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This lack of self-control does not bode well for probation. :-( Dmcdevit·t 23:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer indefinitely blocked
9) On Nov. 2, Lightbringer was indefinitely blocked by with the reason: "troll; only contributions are negative, blatantly incivl, etc, etc, etc".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Well, this sort of moots the whole thing, but I would like to see a decision reached so some type of enforcement plan is in place if Lightbringer coes back with a different account. MSJapan 02:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with MSJapan, but preferable including his IP (24.68.243.40), since it seems no one else is using it for editing. WegianWarrior 05:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer placed on probation
1) Lightbringer is placed on Probation with respect to articles concerning Freemasonry.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * There are other issues but a crusade against freemasonry is inappropriate Fred Bauder 21:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Does this include placing material about masonic conspiracy theories in other articles not concerning Freemasonry as such? I just want to clarify it now instead of arguing about it later.--SarekOfVulcan 20:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If an article contains information regarding freemasonry it concerns freemasonry Fred Bauder 20:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. --SarekOfVulcan 20:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:
 * This is a good idea. Dmcdevit·t 00:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Use of dubious sources
2) Sites such as freemasonrywatch.org which conflate useful references with crap may not be used as external links with respect to articles which concern freemasonry. Such useful references as are present on the site should be referenced to their original source.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Content but appropriate Fred Bauder 21:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Is there a policy regarding linking to articles that can only be viewed in full by registering for the site? For example, if you follow the link for the Washington Post article, you get taken to a page with only the first paragraph of the article (and a link to republish for a fee), and the same goes for The New York Times, except that it requires registration to view full articles.  I'd like a clarification on that, because I don't see how information can be useful as it pertains to a Wikipedia article if it isn't completely and immediately accessible.  MSJapan 03:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The New York Times article probably has no information other than that concerning a strange incident (I have never heard of such goings on) so its inclusion is marginal at best for that reason alone. The Washington Post article is very interesting and would make a great external link if it were available. Certainly it ought to be listed as a reference (although I don't see anything in the article as it is now from the article), but the reference should be to the original article, not to freemasonwatch, even if most of us have read the article there. As to NYT's articles which require login and a fee, using them as an external link is controversial. I use them myself, but I think the general opinion is against them. I don't know that that general opinion has been put into any specific policy, but perhaps in External links. I just looked at that and the section regarding reference to material used in the creation of the article covers most of my uses. I read the NYTs every day and when I do write an article it is likely to be based on a NYTs story. Fred Bauder 13:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would point out that books, magazines, journals, etc. are not normally readily accessible or free. Websites with fees/registration are not desirable, but it is hard to avoid it with such a reputable source as the NYT and others (thank God for BBC). Dmcdevit·t 00:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Wholesale reverting
3) All parties are cautioned to take particular care when reverting substantial edits, and to only revert the contested changes. Good changes should not be reversed along with the contested ones.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Descriptive edit summaries
4) Lightbringer, Spinboy, Jachin, DreamGuy, and Grazon and are required to use descriptive, civil edit summaries when reverting non-vandalism or making substantial changes.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Lightbringer is exceedingly uncivil and accusatory in edit summaries. The first three all haved deceptively called each other vandals (reverting vandalism) in edit summaries, as seen in the findings of fact. DreamGuy is also uncivil and hostile in edit summaries . This should already be normal practice for all editors. Dmcdevit·t 00:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added Grazon as his editing makes it almost impossible to figure out what's going on. Despite making many substantial changes to Anti-Freemasonry, he hasn't left a single descriptive edit summary of what he did. He was also asked to use edit summaries weeks ago, and ignored the request . At best it's confusing, at worst deceptive. (Lightbringer also rarely uses edit summaries, I just felt the need o explain this one more.) I'm not sure whether Grazon would have to be joined as a party for this. Dmcdevit·t 06:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Limit on reverts
5) Lightbringer, User:MSJapan, Spinboy are limited to one revert per day per article in articles related to Freemasonry. DreamGuy, SarekOfVulcan, XDev, and Grazon are also strongly warned to limit their reverts as well. All parties are instructed to use talk pages rather than edit war at all.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would like to contest the appearance of everyone's name except Lightbringer's and XDev's being on this, based on the fact that everything I reverted was material that had been previously discussed at length on the Talk page and dismissed as unencyclopedic or spurious. I can almost guarantee that without Lightbringer's "contributions", reverts will drop to almost zero, as the rest of us have clearly shown the ability ot reach a consensus via factual material and discussion without resorting to snide comments or bulldozing.  I would also like to note that XDev is earlier shown to be a sockpuppet of Lightbringer, and should probably be referred to as such, as opposed to being considered a separate user, as I feel that it clouds the shape of the problem - One user with multiple accounts is not the same as two distinct users. MSJapan 20:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Those three were the ones that did the most reverting. LB and MSJ both being blocked for 3RR, and while Spinboy did not ever have a 3RR, he frequently warred and gaming the 3RR (ex: 6 reverts in ~40 hours) is IMO just as bad. The other three were all the ones that had multiple reverts in a day multiple times. I'm not clear if XDev and Grazon would have to be joined as a party for this. Dmcdevit·t 00:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * (Respond to MSJapan) The fact that you don't seem to understand is that an edit war is always bad. Period. The fact that others edit war does not justify your response in kind. Your response here demonstrates the need for this remedy. You need to use our dispute resolution. Lightbringer's other problems you mention (consensus, incivility) are addressed elsewhere.
 * Also, I'd like to see where XDev was proven to be a sockpuppet, as I wasn't aware of any certainty on the matter. Dmcdevit·t 20:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand completely that edit wars are bad. However, I maintain that my actions did not constitute and edit war.  3RR does not apply when it comes to reverting vandalism.  The day I was blocked, I summarized an entire section to one heading (the full version was in Anti-Freemasonry, and noted the main article (AFAIK, this was considered a revert for purposes of the block, because the material was originally there a month ago).  Lightbringer summarily reverted my clearly good faith edit as "vandalism" when there was no change in the net information. Therefore, I questioned the validity of the ban then, and I question the validity of my inclusdion on that list.  Yes, it takes two people to create a problem, but when someone is violating policies, should it be allowed to occur on the basis of so-called harmony?  I would challenge anyone to find anything non-constructive I did before requesting page protection, trying to come to an agreement on the discussion page, putting an ArbCom case together, and then having the abuses continue for another few weeks.  I think the situation and evidence clearly shows that mediation was not then and is not now an option. When someone is allowed to destroy an article for two or more weeks because protection does not stay in place, or because emergency injunctions are not put in place after a case has been submitted, things are going to happen, because there's only so far something can be stretched before it breaks.


 * From what I've read of WP:3RR, especially [here], 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism, which is what I was doing. The reason I was doing that is because I objectively established that the material was not factual.  The fact that other editors also removed it indicates a consensus.  Also, according to WP:Vandalism, vandalism is defined as any case when a bad-faith edit is inarguably provable as such, which the evidence also has shown, both by the nature of comments and the number of times factually incorrect or blatantly false material has been inserted into the article.  This has also been addressed by evidence and arbitrator's comments.


 * Lastly, [here] is a pretty good indication that XDev is a sockpuppet. Interesting that he has only made the same edits Lightbringer has, only on Freemasonry-related items, and IIRC, only appeared at the time when Lightbringer was blocked. MSJapan 03:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Precisely why I included the proposed principle about what vandalism is not, namely, POV edits/content disputes are not vandalism (that's where most 3RRs come from), and characterizing them as such to justify a 3RR is wrong, not to mention inflammatory. If Lightbringer was a simple vandal he wouldn't be before arbcom, but summarily blocked as any admin may do. With regards to XDev, I am aware of his contributions, but that wasn't the certainty I was looking for. Dmcdevit·t 03:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Lightbringer placed on personal attack parole
6) Lightbringer is placed on standard personal attack parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Following consensus
7) Lightbringer is prohibited from making substantial changes (or reverting back to a previous version) where the article's talk page has demonstrated consensus against the change.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Not sure how this would work, but editing outside of consensus seems to be one of the major problems here. Dmcdevit·t 00:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Then there was the Freemasonry/Anti-Freemasonry merge, which was consensus at the time, but not currently...--SarekOfVulcan 00:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Think about many of his article edits to Freemasonry without consensus. (Sadly, mistaken consensus cannot be arbitrated against.) Dmcdevit·t 00:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Account Restriction
8) Lightbringer is restricted to editing to the account User:Lightbringer


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Due to his sockpuppetry with User:Call of Duty which I believe has been confirmed to be him and his suspected use of other sockpuppets and IP's to violate the temporary injunction against him. Jtkiefer T  21:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Enforcement by ban
1) Should lightbringer edit any article from which he is banned he may be blocked for a brief period, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I may be doing a worst-case scenario here, but what's to stop Lightbringer from causing trouble, being banned, coming back, doing it again, getting banned, and so on and so forth ad infinitum? I would like to see a harsher repeat offense clause in here. MSJapan 20:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Anti-Freemasonry
1) Anti-Freemasonry was created by on October 8, 2005; its content was devoted to instances where freemasonry was suppressed or actively opposed, for example, by Franco, Hitler, or Mussolini . Shortly after its creation Grazon added this heading "Note: This article is about important people and Historic movements only."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I understand that using other articles is a good way to illustrate a systematic problem, but the problem originally arose on Freemasonry, while all the evidence listed in this section relates to Anti-Freemasonry. I might be off on the wrong foot here, but shouldn't the majority of what's posted here as evidence relate to the main article in question? MSJapan 03:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is just part of the main article for my purposes, being a variety of damned knowledge, pushed off into a corner so that a sympathetic point of view is maintained in the main article. That said, I do not want to see conspiracy theory nonsense. Fred Bauder 13:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I was the one who suggested it should be moved to Anti-Freemasonry, as the main article was getting way too long. Perhaps that wasn't the best way to break up the article into smaller articles, but it seemed a logical course of action to stop the edit warring. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy  17:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer blanks page
2) On October 9, 2005 blanked the page based on the assertion the material was "not supported by historical or academic references - of any kind." Another basis for blanking was that Freemasonry was blocked and a request for arbitration had been made . Spinboy restored.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer moves all material critical of freemasonry to Anti-Masonry
3) Lightbringer moves all material critical of freemasonry to Anti-Masonry with the comment "moved former anti-masonry page material from blocked freemasonry page to neutralize bad faith action by pro-mason editors"


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Grazon removes conspiracy theory details
4) Grazon removes a paragraph concerning political conspiracy theories


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Probably original research anyway Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Grazon removes religious opposition
5) Grazon removes section on religious opposition to freemasonry


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Grazon removes "Masons worship Satan"
6) Grazon remove section regarding devil worship.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Moved to Taxil hoax.--SarekOfVulcan 18:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC) (Well, duplicated in Taxil hoax. I'm not sure at what point it was moved.--SarekOfVulcan 02:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC))


 * Comment by others:

More removals
7) More removal by Grazon


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer adds negative material
8. Lightbringer adds material regarding Freemasonry under Hitler.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Damning but unsourced Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * "The situation regarding the position of Freemasonry during the Nazi period is not clear cut as current Masonic Histories indicate. For example the three 'Regular' Grand Lodges in Germany had always been anti-semitic, refusing membership to Jews." -- The 'Old Prussian' lodges were not the only lodges in Germany, they do not appear to be Grand Lodges in and of themselves (although they could be), and they at least allowed visits by non-Christian Masons as early as the 1830s. Funnily enough, a Google search on Freemasonry in Germany will pull up 2 articles on FreemasonryWatch, and they both have differing viewpoints from each other as regards the state of German Freemasonry.  There are also statements from the Masonic Service Association's trip to Germany after the war for the Nuremburg Trials that state that Hitler looted 10 million dollars worth of material from Lodges, much of which has never been recovered.  The articles do actually delve into the complex relationship, and it is only this edit that seeks to state that the situation was straightforward as stated by Masonic researchers (which, BTW, is exactly from whom FreemasonryWatch gets its material from).

"A number of irregular or 'humanitarian' Grand Lodges did admit Jews, but they were not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England, the 'Mother' Lodge and arbitrator of 'Regular' Freemasonry as being Freemasons. When Hitler came to power he immediately outlawed these 'irregular' Grand Lodges that permitted Jews membership. The 'Regular' Grand Lodges of Germany's Grand Masters all sent letters of congratulations and loyalty to Hitler and Goebbels on their election in 1933 and were allowed to continue operating if they 'de-judaized' themselves by changing their name to the 'Frederick the Great Association' (the founder of Freemasonry in Prussia and Hitlers personel hero) and remove certain Judaic phrases from their rituals and teachings(such as Tubal-Cain, Boaz, Hiramic Legend)." -- Also not 100% true. All Freemasonry was outlawed in all Nazi controlled countries. The Old Prussian Lodges changed their names and became Christian orders (Frederick was only one) in order to remain operational, but they were nevertheless shut down within a year or two. Whether the Lodges were recognized or not has never been brought up in articles, so one must assume that they were (except for 2 exceptions) regular lodges. Once again, fact does not bear out the edits made. MSJapan 14:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer adds more negative material
9) Lightbringer adds negative material regarding the contemporary UK


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Plausible but unsourced Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I can't vouch for the details, but in general, accurate. Sourcing would be useful.--SarekOfVulcan 18:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * IIRC, there wasn't any particular incident involved (20 years is a long time), and the legislation eventually applied to all politicians who were members of any society (applying only to Masonry was cinsudered prejudicial). The intent was to disclose special interest, but I do not believe that the bill was passed. MSJapan 14:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer adds more negative material
10) Regarding Salazar and Portugal


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Fantastic and unsourced Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Clumsy edit by Lightbringer
11) Lightbringer blanks page to a single link to WP:R {Redirect)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Inexplicable Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Reverted
12) restores prior version.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer redirects
13) Lightbringer blanks and redirects to Freemasonry with the comment "redirect to Freemasonry. I don't think we should have seperate pages on this topic"


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Pjacobi reverts
14) reverts with the comment "rv - see talk" . Discussion by both Lightbringer and Pjacobi is at Talk:Anti-Freemasonry.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer again redirects
15) After a few ordinary edits Lightbringer again redirects with the comment "it has already been decided by consensus that critical material will not be put on a seperate page but will be inclusive to whole" . Spinboy reverts with the comment "rv vandalism"


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer redirects a third time
16) Lightbringer again redirects with the comment "there will not be a seperate "ghettoization" of the criticism material from the Freemasonry page" . Spinboy reverts with the comment "rv vandalism".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer redirects a fourth time
17) Lightbringer again redirects with the comment "Anti-Freemasonry page merged with Freemasonry page as per previous consensus" . Spinboy reverts with the comment "Revert vandalism. Consensus changes.".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer redirects a fifth time
18) Lightbringer redirects yet again without comment . Grazon revert without comment.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer restores original article, adding Hitler material
19) Lightbringer removes criticisms of freemasonry, thus restoring original nature of the article as created by Grazon. He also adds Hitler quote and several sources


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

freemasonrywatch.org
20) http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/P2.html the link which contains the Hitler quote illustrates the sort of problems associated with freemasonrywatch. freemasonrywatch.org "Monitoring the Invisible Empire, the World's Largest Secret Society", is listed third among "Top conspiracy sites".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Despite good information on some freemasonry pages there is conflation with fantastic conspiratorial material. I think this may render the site unable. Useful information needs to be sourced to the original source freemasonrywatch copied it from Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Spinboy reverts
21) Spinboy reverts, removing information and links to freemasonrywatch and restoring broadbased critical material removed by Lightbringer


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer removes material favorable to freemason
22) Lightbringer removes a paragraph concerning the good works of freemasonry . Removal of apologetics regarding ritual. Apologetics regarding openness. Regarding conspiracy theories.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Devil worship
23) Lightbringer adds material associating freemasonry with Lucifer and Satan


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * This edit was also made on Freemasonry when the same section was located there.


 * Lightbringer is conflating Masons who were occultists and/or Rosicrucians outside of Masonry with being occultists inside Masonry, and furthermore, he assumes they speak for Masonry as a whole when they do not. The Waite book The Book of Black Magic has nothing to do with Masonry at all.  Lightbringer also missed the fact that in the quote attributed to Mackey in his "Scotch Rite" book (although I don't recall ever seeing Scottish Rite called Scotch Rite in the US, even in other  books by Mackey or his contemporaries), "En Sof" is a typo for "Ein Sof", a Kabbalistic reference to G-d, which changes the whole meaning of the paragraph.  The same goes for Levi and Hall; the books they write are not indicative of a party line, but are rather their own application of their own ideas.  Furthermore, they did not originate the degrees.


 * The Sister Blavatsky material has no relevance to Freemasonry, because the Grand Orient of France is not regular Masonry, and is recognized by almost no other jurisdiction in the world, because they violate the Landmark of requiring a Volume of Sacred Law to be present, and furthermore initiate women. The "Primitive Rite" is also something peculiar to Grand Orient, and has no validity for anyone else.  The Pike letter to the Supreme Councils was shown to be part of the Taxil Hoax.  Lightbringer removed the one piece of cited evidence, which was a quote by Pike in Morals and Dogma.  The quote exists, but as with a lot of texts discussing symbolism, the interpretation leading to Satan worship is questionable, especially given that Pike states clearly in the introduction to the book that a lot of the material is culled from other sources.  I know a discussion of this came up earlier in Talk:Freemasonry, but I can't seem to find it ATM.


 * Also, while the Mason may encounter Lucifer in the 30th degree (according to Mackey), it says nothing about worship. Those books that deal with the AASR degrees tend to only deal with symbolism, not content, and assume the reader knows the content of the degree already.  Furthermore, the connection and relevance of any of this material to Freemasonry is almost non-existent; the books are over 100 years old in many cases, and they refer to a set of degrees that have no effect on one's status as a Mason (AASR is a separate entity from regular Masonry), and the degrees, in many cases, have had their content rewritten since those books came out.  It is relevant as history, not as contemporary commentary, notwithstanding the fact that most people think Pike was full of it.


 * Most importantly, the citations for the added material are lousy. It is impossible to tell what material is from what book, so even if one discounts my entire argument above, it's simply poorly written.MSJapan 15:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer finds an acorn
24) Lightbringer replaces some weasel words with specifics


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Nice edit if sourced Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * According to [this page], there was never a trial, but [this page] state that three Masons served time for kidnapping, but murder was never proven. While certain details differ, I would say that while it is fair to say a trial took place, the numbers and the charges that were added as edits are clearly unsubstantiated. There is [a lot of research] done on the subject, but there is much that still seems to be unclear.MSJapan 02:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Religious opposition
25) Lightbringer adds material regarding religious opposition {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Freemasonry&diff=next&oldid=25817314 Inexplicable revision]


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lightbringer redoes article
26) Lightbringer adds obscure unsourced material, removes original content of the article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Another acorn
27) Lightbringer adds a good link to the freemason article in the Catholic Enyclopedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Appropriate link Fred Bauder 18:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would like ot note that an edit comment states that "MSJapan was afraid to remove this link", when in fact, I felt that it was a good link, unlike many of the other added links. MSJapan 02:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

More links
28) Lightbringer adds many links, some dubious


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Spinboy reverts
29) Meat axe revert by Spinboy removes both the good and bad edits by Lightbringer


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

XDev adds a bit
30) XDev adds two dubious links Grazon reverts with the comment "removed links to crackpot sites" . SarekOfVulcan restores and suggests talk.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Grazon replaces anti-links
31) Grazon replaces links to anti-freemason sites with links to masonic sites critical of them . Spinboy restores commenting "I agree with SarekOfVulcan"


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit by Grazon
32) Grazon adds material  (copyedited next edit by SarekOfVulcan)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Worst of masonry
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taxil_hoax&diff=prev&oldid=25368701


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * On its face a comment by a POV warrior Fred Bauder 19:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think we should keep our eyes on 69.237.183.245 -- the IP's edit pattern matches Lightbringer's quite well. In Gunpowder Plot, there is a large POV change with typos, followed by a correction. In Freemasonry, over the course of several edits, "ecumenical" is changed to "syncretistic", and several other POV changes are made. On the other hand, DNSStuff.com reports very different locations for the IPs, so I may be overreacting.--SarekOfVulcan 15:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That being said, I can almost agree with the change, in that "ecumenical" has a strong religious overtone (the defs for it on dictionary.com are almost wholly connected to religion), but "syncretistic" isn't quite right either. It needs a new word altogether.  However, that one word does change the tone considerably, and it should have been discussed first. MSJapan 23:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others: