Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Case opened on 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 20:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 22:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

• Karanacs (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

• Piecemeal dispute resolution has been attempted at AN, ANI, and through the Arbitration Committee, which have resulted in piecemeal interaction bans. (some linked below)
• Also, Lightbreather has been previously topic-banned from gun control.

Statement by Karanacs[edit]

Lightbreather is currently a party to 4 interaction bans (mutual with Hell in a Bucket [1] and Eric Corbett [2], Mike Searson cannot interact with her [3], and she cannot interact with Sitush [4]), and over the last year she has proposed two more (Two kinds of pork [5] and Scalhotrod)[6]), and had an earlier voluntary mutual Iban from (former editor Sue Rangell).

I believe these were necessitated because Lightbreather edits with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, forum-shops/canvasses, and refuses to examine her own behavior. Recent examples:

Ownership / admin-shopping

• 31 Mar initiated an ANI asking an admin to stop others from editing articles until her injury healed [7]
  • Did not like response, so she pinged specific admins [8]
  • When they didn't respond, asked on their talk pages [9] [10]
  • 25 Apr continues to bring up the same issue [11]

Baiting/Battleground

LB is still upset over a comment made by Eric Corbett in July 2014 (see Feb 20 diff below). 26 Apr

• discussion at AN on whether LB should be topic-banned from gun control
• LB went to Eric's page to follow Sitush, ABFing that Sitush would be talking about her. [12]. "you were getting over stimulated.... I've learned that when this happens, you might be talking about me on Eric's page - risky as it is for him""
• [13] Responds to 3-week-old comments with the edit summary "Do you people never tire of self-congratulation?". Original comments were an observation that the KaffeeKlatsch was essentially defunct.[14] LB's post was a defense of the KaffeeKlatsch in the form of an attack on those opposed.
• When he didn't respond immediately, she tried again [15]
• [16] "When you start discussions here - which is what we call these things with headers on talk pages - you know full well that your watchers are gonna come along and stroke your ego and you'll all lift your virtual pints and say "Hurrah!" or "Good on ya!" or whatever the hell you say, and speak poorly of your enemies (or the insects or rejects or however you think of us)."

Refusal to accept warnings

• 26 Apr I explained why I considered her actions baiting. Her responses were to point at others: [17][18][19]
• (LB barely edited in March)
• 26 Feb When caught canvassing, speculated others were doing it [20]
• 20 Feb When asked to strike a personal attack, she tried to justify the attack [21] and referred to a 7-month-old comment that Eric made
• 12 Feb [22] implies she is warned because of sexism

When an editor gathers that many interaction bans, their behavior should be examined to determine whether there is a larger problem. I ask that those under Ibans with her be allowed to give a statement and/or evidence in this case.

@GorillaWarfare, I do not believe it is necessary to add other named parties. The specific interactions have been examined by the community, which has imposed - or declined to impose - interaction bans. The primary question is whether this series of Ibans, combined with other behavior, shows a pattern of misbehavior or not. Evidence about the behavior of others can be added as mitigating factors for LB's conduct without them being named as parties. If other parties are added, I request the list be limited to only those with an active Iban with LB, and that the scope is narrowed to only their interactions with LB. I do not want to see this case devolve into discussing how user:XYZ acted with user:ABC or on topic:DEF that was not directly related to Lightbreather. Karanacs (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare, the pattern of misbehavior of other editors would likely extend beyond the areas in which Lightbreather has edited, and, as such, a separate case for each of those editors, if necessary, would seem more appropriate. Her behavior is not confined neatly to a single topic area, which would seem to make it difficult to define a narrow enough case unless it is focused on LB and her interactions. The more parties are added, the longer the case will likely take, and that seems unfair to LB, who will be editing under a cloud in the meantime. However, you all have more experience at this than I - I trust you can find a workable definition. Karanacs (talk) 02:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lightbreather[edit]

There are behaviors that need examination - as amendments to the Gun control and GGTF ArbComs. Edits that Karanacs gave, and that I give below, are mostly within the focus/locus of those cases. Please add the following as involved parties. --Lightbreather (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. EChastain

• Involvement in focus of GGTF ArbCom on her talk page,[23][24] and Mansplaining article/talk,[25] including warring with EvergreenFir at the article.[26]
  (30 July 2014 Coincidence? One week before Sue Rangell quit editing articles last August, EvergreenFir undid[27] an addition that Sue made to Culture of Japan.)
• Between Oct-Nov 2014 she made 16 comments on the GGTF main case talk page, 15 comments in the workshop, and 24 on the GGTF PD talk pages, including...
  • 29 November 2014 Eight weeks after case was opened, and three days before it closed - started Neotarf started this whole thing by spamming Hell In the Bucket's original post - resulting in this arbitration.
• Opposed WikiWomen project (mentions GGTF with her vote)[28] and monitored[29] the Kaffeeklatsch for women.
• Nov 2014 Casting asperions.
• Mar 2015 Personal attack (in ES and discussion).

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Eric Corbett

• Violated topic ban: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35].
• 11 Jan 2015 Canvassing (campaigning).
• Casting aspersions: [36], [37], [38]
• Jan 2015 Joined in personal attack.
• Feb 2015 Baiting, and violating topic ban.

• WP:ARE cases since ArbCom:
  • 25 Jan 2015 Blocked for 48h, violating a topic ban.
  • 28 Jan 2015 Request declined.
  • 7 Feb 2015 Request declined.
  • 27 Feb 2015 Blocked for 72h, violating a topic ban.
  • 28 Apr 2015 IBAN

3. Faceless Enemy - February 2015 SPI No action. Editing history is inconsistent, and he's focused on gun control since his return to active editing in January. Twelve days after Gun show loophole was nominated for GA,[39] he proposed merging Universal background check into it[40] - though the same proposal had been discussed recently. At National Rifle Association, he engaged in warring (with me) over its Finances section.[41][42] Nutshell: Four pro-gun editors were topic banned from gun-control at ArbCom last year. All engaged in battleground conduct and one was known to sock. Arbitrator analysis is warranted. --Lightbreather (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4. Godsy - First edit was 2 Dec 2014, but they're obviously not a WP newbie. Early April, without working on any other gun-control related articles, they started editing Nazi gun control theory... which was born of the gun control ArbCom. He has been edit warring over it. (See "Nutshell" above.) --Lightbreather (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5. Hell in a Bucket: WP:BATTLEGROUND,[43] (WP:PA, WP:BAITING) WP:INCIVILITY,[44] (gravedancing) WP:FORUM,[45][46] (WP:ASPERSIONS) WP:PNB,[47][48] WP:ARBPOL.[49] Presents himself and others as "defenders of the wiki." [50][51]

6. Scalhotrod I was not involved in the Gun control or the GGTF ArbComs. In fact, my only direct connection was the ArbCom Enforcement about Gun Control that LB brought against me.... 19:15, 30 April 2015

Gun control

• Edit history shows long involvement in gun-related editing, especially in months around and since GC ArbCom.
• Jan 2014? Mentioned in GC ArbCom Evidence presented by Gothean
• 6 May 2014 Coached on his talk page by GC topic-banned editor in dispute he (Scalhotrod) was having with me.
• 8 May 2014 Statement by Scalhotrod
• 6 Nov 2014 Broke our GC topic ban.
• 15 Dec 2014 Told an admin he was pro-gun (topic ban was still in force).
• 4 Feb 2015 Suggested creating a "Gun politics task force" (GPTF) "similar in nature to how the GGTF is setup".

GGTF

• 28 Jul 2014 Joined GGTF 38 hours after I did.[52] See Departed member explains, in her own words
• 14 Oct 2014 Mentioned in my evidence at GGTF ARCA.
• 14 Oct 2014 I ask the arbiters to please to remove mention of me from this proceeding in the above referenced.... One of seven comments to evidence talk page.
• 4 Feb 2015 Mentioned in EChastain's statement at GGTF ARCA.
• 6 Feb 2015 Mentioned three times in Karanacs' statement at GGTF ARCA.

30 Apr 2015 Advised Faceless Enemy, upon advice of Karanacs, that he was going to "speak up right away" and ask to excuse himself from this RFAR.

7. Sitush

8. Sue Rangell

Questions/replies to arbitrators

Euryalus Lodged in anger and haste would be closer to my meaning, but I am going to bed soon. Lightbreather (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

• @Floquenbeam: I've left a message on Lightbreather's talk page. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse as clerk, as a former party to the GGTF case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <9/1/0/2>[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• @Lightbreather: a quick clarification - your statement argues that Karanacs is an "involved admin" - but lodging a case request is not an admin action, so alleged "involvement" isn't that relevant. Are you in fact suggesting the request should be declined because it is lodged in bad faith? This isn't intended as a semantic question - it will help in considering the context of the presented material. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Yunshui ^雲_水 14:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Awaiting more statements before deciding. That said, I think it would be inappropriate to hold a case with Lightbreather as the sole party; her behavior cannot be examined without examining the behavior of others. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  @Karanacs: It seems one-sided to object to bringing in more parties by claiming that Lightbreather's "series of Ibans, combined with other behavior, shows a pattern of misbehavior" when other parties involved with the disruption relating to Lightbreather also have multiple sanctions and "other behavior" that could constitute a "pattern of misbehavior". I also would like to avoid an overly broad case if this is accepted, but I think limiting it to Lightbreather would swing too far in the other direction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Awaiting statements. I am leaning in the direction of a decline here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. It's clear to me that Lightbreather's behaviour needs to be examined as a whole, as the piecemeal way that it's happened so far has not resolved matters. I'm not sure at the moment exactly who should be on the list of parties, but those who have an iban with Lightbreather who wish to participate should be considered parties without necessarily dragging in those who don't. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as framed, with no prejudice to reframing the case, or a future filing. I'm not sure it is the right time for a case that is purely about LightBreather - the recent two interaction bans could be given a chance to improve the situation. I'm honestly not sure they will, and a comprehensive case looking at LB and interactions with other editors may well be needed nowish; but not a case on LB in a vacuum now, though it may well be necessary in a while. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept This seems inevitable. Considering the number of problems, it appears that interaction bans by themselves do not prevent further disruption in dealing with this editor, & I see no basis for predicting that the current ones will do better. We would do well to deal with it now, before yet greater animosities accumulate. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept case as framed. Of course, the conduct of other editors in relation to Lightbreather will have to be examined as well, to determine whether she was the target of harassment, as she alleges. Other than that, I don't see a reason to extend the scope of the case to the overall conduct of the editors mentioned by Lightbreather. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept Like DGG, I think this was going to happen sooner or later, in which case the sooner the better. I also agree with Salvio. This should not be about the general conduct of any other editors, but whether or not they were harassing her. Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept LFaraone 20:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept -- Euryalus (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept and agreed with Salvio. There's no other way this is getting resolved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept This is consuming too much community/DR time and needs resolution.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction[edit]

Lightbreather and Scalhotrod interaction ban[edit]

1) Lightbreather and Scalhotrod are placed under a temporary full interaction ban (sans the usual exceptions). They may comment on each other only on matters directly affecting this case and only on the relevant Workshop or Arbitration case talk pages. They may comment on allegations of off-wiki misconduct only by email and such emails must be directed only to the Arbitration Committee. This temporary restriction may be enforced by any clerk or administrator by means of immediate redaction of potentially problematic material and blocks of up to seventy-two hours. Appeals may be made only by the sanctioned user(s), are to be made to the Arbitration Committee only by email. This temporary restriction will expire when the case closes and supersedes any other provisions regarding permissibility of comments.

Passed 8 to 0 at 17:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, or furtherance of outside conflicts—is prohibited.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Collegiality and recidivism[edit]

2) Editors are human. They will sometimes make mistakes and suffer occasional lapses of judgment. However, editing in a collaborative project comes with the high expectation that they will do their utmost to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with others. Accordingly, inappropriate conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited, as is the use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously violate these basic standards of conduct may be sanctioned. Editors who have already been sanctioned may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated violations.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment on the edits, not the editor[edit]

3) Editors are expected to comment on the substance of others' edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a personal attack.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Making allegations against other editors[edit]

4) An editor who alleges misconduct by another editor is responsible for providing clear evidence of that misconduct. An editor who is unable or unwilling to support such an accusation should refrain from making the accusation at all. A claim of misconduct should initially be raised directly with the other user, unless there are very compelling reasons for not doing so. If direct discussion does not resolve the issue, it should be raised in the appropriate forum for reporting or discussing misconduct. Claims of misconduct should be made with the goal of resolving the problem, not of impugning another editor's reputation. Such allegations should not be raised repeatedly across multiple forums as this breaches the policy on forum shopping.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Casting aspersions[edit]

5) It is unacceptable for an editor to continually accuse another of egregious misbehavior in an attempt to besmirch their reputation. Concerns should be brought up in the appropriate forums with evidence, if at all.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Feuding and bad blood[edit]

6) Community attempts to resolve disputes calmly and expeditiously are thwarted when the processes are disrupted by inflammatory accusations and disparaging rhetoric as editors seemingly pursue long term feuds with each other. Users with a history of bad blood should take appropriate steps, including disengagement, to reduce rather than increase negative interpersonal contact. Serious or serial feuding can lead to blocks, interaction bans or site bans to prevent the spread of disruption to the encyclopedia and the community.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Hounding[edit]

7) "Hounding" is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor.

An editor's contribution history is public, and there are various legitimate reasons for following an editor's contributions, such as for the purposes of recent changes patrol, WikiProject tagging, or for dispute resolution purposes. Under certain circumstances, these activities can easily be confused with hounding.

Editors should at all times remember to assume good faith before concluding that hounding is taking place, although editors following another editor's contributions should endeavour to be transparent and explain their actions wherever necessary in order to avoid mistaken assumptions being drawn as to their intentions.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Harassment[edit]

8) Harassment is a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting one or more targeted persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating them. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for targeted persons, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Responding to harassment (Alternate)[edit]

9A) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others – or who genuinely perceives himself or herself to have been harassed or attacked—whether on Wikipedia or off—should not see that harassment as an excuse for violating Wikipedia policy. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment by email to the Arbitration Committee and/or to the Wikimedia Foundation Office. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards, especially where the harassment has been protracted or severe.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Serious harassment (limitations)[edit]

10) Neither the community nor the committee is well-equipped to deal with threats to health and safety, whether made on- or off-wiki. On-wiki steps are usually limited to reverting, page protection, and blocking. Additionally, the Wikimedia Foundation have issued guidelines for responding to threats of harm and there are links at "How to deal with harassment". Editors can also notify their local law enforcement.

Passed 11 to 2 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Off-wiki conduct (Alternate)[edit]

11A) The harassment policy states: "Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely."

In dealing with any incident of off-wiki harassment, there are at least two separate questions that must be answered: first, was there off-wiki harassment warranting an on-wiki consequence, and second, can the identity of the harasser be linked with sufficient certainty to a specific Wikipedia editor. There may be instances in which off-wiki harassment warranting an on-wiki sanction has unquestionably occurred, but the harassment cannot be linked, or cannot be linked with sufficient certainty, to a specific Wikipedia account. The fact that no on-wiki action is taken in such circumstances should not be interpreted as diminishing the community's or the Committee's disgust at acts of harassment or their commitment to combatting it.

Passed 9 to 2 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Conduct on arbitration pages[edit]

12) [was 11] Policy states: "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry[edit]

13) [was 12) The general rule is one editor, one account. The creation or use of an additional account or IP address to conceal an editing history, to evade a block or a site ban, or to deceive the community, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Background[edit]

1) Although the account was created in March 2007, Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did not start editing actively until August 2013. About half of her edits have been to articles, focusing almost entirely on the Gun control topic. This case was accepted on 3 May 2015 for the purpose of investigating allegations of widespread misconduct by Lightbreather.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Targeted[edit]

2) Lightbreather has been the target of inappropriate on-wiki commentary and, since the opening of this case, the target of off-wiki sexual harassment.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment against Lightbreather[edit]

2.1) The functionaries team reviewed evidence submitted about off-wiki sexual harassment of Lightbreather, but was unable to reach a consensus over whether or not it was sufficient to connect a Wikipedia editor to the harassment. The Wikimedia Foundation was kept fully informed throughout.

The functionaries and the Arbitration Committee also reviewed evidence of a separate, apparently unrelated, pattern of off-wiki harassment. As there was conclusive evidence of the identity of the perpetrator of the second series of events, User:Two kinds of pork was blocked.

Passed 11 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather: disruptive conduct[edit]

3) Lightbreather has edited with insufficient regard for site policies and guidelines, and has engaged in disruptive activity on many occasions. Without necessarily agreeing with each and every allegation, or endorsing each and every diff, the evidence presented by Karanacs, Gaijin42, Capeo and Ca2james is persuasive. The following sub-paragraphs illustrate some but not all of the issues raised.

Passed 11 to 2 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Intransigence[edit]

3.1) Lightbreather has an intransigent approach to editing, exemplified in the following example from the Gun Control topic:

• 00:18, 10 April 2014 – Lightbreather edits the article on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to add the terms "assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines," with the summary "commonly called - used in this article and hundreds of others."[53]
• 07:34, 10 April 2014 – Ianmacm reverts this edit, with the summary "rv good faith edit, this isn't really necessary in the WP:LEAD and introduces an element of original research."[54]
• 15:38, 10 April 2014 – Lightbreather opens a talk page discussion on the addition of the terms.[55]
• 15:43, 10 April 2014 – Lightbreather undoes Ianmacm's revert, with the summary "rv good faith edit per talk page; passes WP:MOSINTRO, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V."[56]
• 15:50, 10 April 2014 – Ianmacm responds to the talk page discussion.[57]
• 15:51, 10 April 2014 – Ianmacm reverts the edit to the article, with the summary "rv good faith edit, see talk page."[58]
• 18:01, 10 April 2014 – Lightbreather responds to the talk page discussion.[59]
• 18:14, 10 April 2014 – Lightbreather replaces the terms "semi-automatic firearms" and "magazines" in the body of the article with "assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines", with the summary "WP:MOSINTRO (not over-specific and context familiar to normal reader), WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS; greater detail saved for body of article per WP:MOSINTRO."[60]
• 21:42, 10 April 2014 – Aoidh reverts this edit, with the summary "Undid revision 603654715 by Lightbreather (talk) Previous consensus is pretty clearly against this wording, Please get a new consensus *before* making this edit again.."[61]
• 19:32, 12 April 2014 – Lightbreather creates the article Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. (later moved to the title "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting") [62][63]

Passed 11 to 2 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Gun control topic-ban[edit]

3.2) On 14 July 2014, Lightbreather and another editor were topic-banned from the Gun control topic for six-months for edit-warring. One of the participating administrators concluded that the edit-warring was POV-driven.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ownership of articles and admin shopping[edit]

3.3) After the expiration of the topic-ban, Lightbreather engaged in similarly intransigent behaviour. She also engaged in article ownership and admin shopping.

• 22:06, 30 March 2015 – Lightbreather posted on Talk:Silicon Valley to say that she was out of state, and had broken her elbow. She asked that the "Gender and race inequality" and "Sexism" sections be left alone. [64]
• 13:43, 31 March 2015 – Lightbreather initiated an ANI asking an administrator to stop another user from editing the article until her injury healed, as they had been in dispute about its content. She also claimed that this was not the first time he had taken advantage of her absence. [65]
• 15:18, 31 March 2015 – Floquenbeam closed the discussion, saying "Lightbreather, please provide a list of all articles you would prefer to be full-protected until you are ready to edit at your normal level again. If the list proves too long, it might be simpler to just full-protect the entire encyclopedia until you're ready to return. Although something that drastic might require a straw poll or something."[66]
• 16:12, 31 March 2015 – Lightbreather posted at ANI to ask for an uninvolved administrator to review the close, and pinged administrators GorillaWarfare and SlimVirgin.[67] when she disagreed with the response
• 03:34, 1 April 2015 – When the administrators didn't respond, she notified them on their talk pages.[68][69]
• 17:38, 25 April 2015 – Lightbreather again brings up the issue and claims that Scalhotrod "enjoy[s] messing with editors (me anyway, since he's done it twice now) when he knows they're on vacation or otherwise indisposed - say with a broken arm."[70]

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert- and edit-warring[edit]

3.4) During the same time period at the events in paragraph 3.3, and within the same broad topic, Lightbreather also engaged in further disruption of the Gun control topic in March/April 2015, after returning from her six-month topic-ban. Summary: "If I were in my own office and had the use of both arms, I might have tried to figure out the appropriate edits you made among the others.” 1 2 3 4 (3RR violation) and see[71]. Edit-warring on Gun show loophole 18 February 2015[72] resulting in article protection. Edit-warring 15 April 2015 on National Rifle Association[73] resulting in "no action" as discussion was taking place, with the closing administrator telling both parties "Your instinct should be to discuss first, not edit war and then begrudgingly discuss".

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Casting aspersions and refusal to get the point[edit]

3.5) Lightbreather has used SPI against editors with whom she disagrees (for example, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaijin42/Archive, which involved two editors with whom she was involved in disputes [74][75]) During this case she also raised the issue of an SPI she had opened against User:Faceless Enemy, which she attempted to reopen after it was closed without action [76][77] with additional claims that the editor was socking.[78]. She then asked the Arbitration Committee to review the SPI as a part of this case, and tried to add evidence from her SPI as evidence to the case.[79][80][81][82][83] See also [84].

Passed 11 to 1 with 1 abstention at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate off-wiki conduct[edit]

3.6) Lightbreather posted inappropriately to an off-wiki website apparently with the objective of having the participants identify a Wikipedia editor by name. (Private evidence.)

Passed 10 to 2 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Disruption to prove a point[edit]

3.7) When a discussion here (about whether or not to include examples of assault pistols on the article page) was not going her way, Lightbreather deleted examples of other firearm types to prove her point. ([85] [86] [87] [88])

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather and Scalhotrod[edit]

3.8) There is a history of bad blood between Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Scalhotrod (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and, as a consequence, in July 2014, both editors were topic banned from gun control for six months per this discretionary sanctions request. However, the interpersonal issues continued elsewhere on Wikipedia. (See Karanacs' Evidence (Example 2).) The interpersonal issues flared up again in the Gun control topic during this case and, on 6 June 2015, the Arbitration Committee passed a temporary injunction, restricting interaction between Lightbreather and Scalhotrod for the duration of the case.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Battleground behaviour and responses to good-faith criticism[edit]

3.9) Lightbreather is unwilling to drop an issue when her first attempt is unsuccessful, taking it to various forums, admins and other editors. (See Karanacs' Evidence (Example 3).)

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Overview of current remedies and restrictions[edit]

Remedies/restrictions: Prior to this case[edit]

4.1 a) Interaction bans: Lightbreather was already party to four interaction bans when the case was accepted. These are mutual with Hell in a Bucket [89] (an IBAN she requested), and Eric Corbett [90], User:Mike Searson cannot interact with Lightbreather [91], and Lightbreather cannot interact with Sitush [92]. Over the last year Lightbreather has proposed two more interaction bans that were not imposed (Two kinds of pork [93] and Scalhotrod)[94]).

4.1 b) Blocks: On 30 November 2014 Lightbreather was given a one-week block for sockpuppetry using an IP (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather/Archive). On 01 December 2014, this block was extended to two weeks for further sockpuppetry. On 27 February 2015, Lightbreather was blocked for 25 hours for canvassing.([95]). On 29 April 2015, a block for outing placed three days earlier was rescinded after a discussion on the Oversight mailing list concluded that no outing had taken place.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Remedies/restrictions: During this case[edit]

4.2 a) Interaction bans: During this case, a temporary mutual interaction ban was placed on Lightbreather and Scalhotrod by ArbCom motion.[96].

4.2 b) Blocks: During this case, Lightbreather was blocked four times: ([97]). These are: one 24-hour block for edit warring at National Rifle Association (the other party was also blocked); two separate 72-hour blocks ([98][99]) for breaching the Scalhotrod temporary interaction ban; and a 48-hour block for breaching the Hell in a Bucket interaction ban.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Lightbreather: Site-ban[edit]

Passed 9 to 4 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Suspended for a probationary period 12 months motion at 22:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Lightbreather: Gun control topic-ban[edit]

2) Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic-banned from the Gun control topic, broadly construed.

Passed 12 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather: Restricted to one account[edit]

3) Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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.

Passed 11 to 2 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather: 1RR[edit]

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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather: Reverse topic ban[edit]

5) Lightbreather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather: Interaction bans taken over (alternate)[edit]

6A) All interactions 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:

1. Mike Searson (one-way)
2. Eric Corbett (two-way)
3. Sitush (one-way)
4. Scalhotrod (two-way)

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Amended by motion at 20:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Community invited[edit]

7) The community is invited to create and maintain a page containing practical advice and guidance on dealing with serious harassment.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Community urged[edit]

8) The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on improved trust and safety policies for the site.[100], [101] and the community is urged to offer what assistance it can.

Passed 13 to 0 at 02:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Motion (January 2019)[edit]

Passed 10 to 0 by motion at 20:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Motion (September 2022)[edit]

Passed 6 to 2 with 3 abstentions by motion at 22:32, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy (except discretionary sanctions) for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

• Lightbreather (talk · contribs) blocked 72 hours by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for breach of the temporary injunction. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]