Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Case management

Lightbreather's case

Because of the unusual number of participants with i-bans in this case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

 Roger Davies ^talk 10:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary statements by non-party editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Request) Statement by Hell in a Bucket

If I may a suggestion, this my indeed be in violation of my Iban and feel free to block away or remove if it is. If allowed to participate may I suggest zero interaction between them and only posting of evidence with restrictions from the talkpages for all bans. I actually have enjoyed the quiet of the interaction ban and while I would like to provide evidence it reduces the drama if replies are not allowed and same stuff outside of the request/evidence phase alone should be allowed. It should make the waters clearer and calmer while allowing evidence to be provided. I refrain from comment to the merits of the case request as I believe it would be a gross violation to do so at this point without clarification. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Request) Statement by GoodDay

Having gone through it myself, I'm not keen on seeing an editor taken to Arbitration. Perhaps the IBANS will suffice. PS- Wikipedia would be better served if we all view editors as neutral gender. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Request) Statement by Ched

Without a doubt, this case needs to see the light of day. If this Arbcom truly is about finding what is best for en.wiki, then you damn well need to view this. — Ched :  ?  02:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Euryalus: if the committee feels that the person that's bringing the case has no grounds, then I offer to bring it. — Ched :  ?  04:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Request) Statement by Capeo

I've watched this brew for almost a year now. And in that time Lightbreather has been a regular locus of discord and drama beyond any other user I can think of. The case needs to be seen. After I saw this I've started collecting diffs and can provide them here in a day or two, or if it becomes clear the case will be accepted, in evidence instead. Capeo (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• To elaborate a bit on Carrite's comment: Lightbreather presented evidence in the GGTF case, "retired", socked to try to affect the outcome, got caught and wrongfully accused the user who brought her to SPI of outing, went on a major sock witch hunt using the same methods of ip geolocation she claimed the day before constituted outing, was unsuccessful in her SPIs, came off a far too short block, and then "unretired". Capeo (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
• LB's additions perfectly illustrate her battleground mentality. They're simply attempts to retry her failed SPIs or finally get sanctions on editors she has tried repeatedly to get sanctioned (going as far as socking in the GGTF ArbCom case). This is a pattern when things don't go her way. Such as when Scalhotrod joined the GGTF and LB responds with a PA and notes Scalhotrod's participation in the the Porn project [1] then quits after other members ask her to AGF [2] and opens an ANI [3] that is quickly closed. So what does she do to avoid someone claims is harassing her? A few days later she joins the Porn project [4] and begins extensive editing then claims Scalhotrod is stalking [5] then initiates another failed ANI [6]. When I point out it was odd to follow someone you're trying to avoid to a project they are active in she calls my post a distraction. Eventually, as can be seen in the diff Karanacs provided she offers to quit the Porn project if Scalhotrod will quit the GGTF, basically admitting she only started editing porn to force her perceived opponents hand. There's also her response to being caught socking. There's too many diffs to post here but the response wasn't contrition, it was to claim she was a victim while simultaneously trying to connect every IP in the case to actual users and claim sockpuppetry. Going so far in one case that she had to have one of her edit summaries revdeled as it could have constituted outing. Since then there have been more failed accusations of sockpuppetry against some of the users she has listed above and of course the latest Sitush and EC blowup where she went unbidden to EC's page to post in a three week old thread that had nothing to do with her. There's no shortage of this behavior that can be further demonstrated if this case is taken. At this point I fear I'm closing on my word limit so I'll leave it at that. Capeo (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(Request) Statement by Carrite

This individual "retired" right ahead of the Gender Gap Task Force Case and "unretired" right after the close, thereby neatly escaping scrutiny. It might be time. Carrite (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Request) Statement by Scalhotrod, request to be excused

Given the requests for amendment that LB made[7], I am asking to be excused from this proceeding and not be named as a party. 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 which resulted in a 6 month Topic Ban for both of us. Thank you, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Request) Statement by Ca2james

Lightbreather's behaviour has been problematic wherever she has edited and so I think a new case should be opened instead of amending either the Gun Control or GGTF cases. I also think that the case should be focused on her behaviour specifically rather than that of the list of editors she's named above. That list includes the editors with whom she's had lots of conflict but her disruptive behaviour goes beyond just those editors to any editors who disagree with her. I recognize that the other editors may not have behaved perfectly, but it is difficult for almost anyone to behave perfectly when faced with the kind of incivility and battleground tendencies that Lightbreather has shown. I have approached Lightbreather several times about the tone of her posts towards certain other editors, as I have found her posts to be uncivil, dismissive, pointy, and combative. Edited to remove example previously provided; will save it for evidence. Ca2james (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Request) Statement by Jehochman

I don't like interaction bans. If an editor can't get along with somebody, they should be told to disengage, and if they don't have the ability to disengage themselves (after perhaps a few suggestions) the next step is disengage them via a block. When there are multiple interaction bans, that's a sure sign that too much has been tolerated. A case, unfortunately, provides a stage for grandstanding, counterclaims, and arguments of moral equivalence. It would be better for somebody to just hit the block button and be done with it. This solution would also be kinder, because an ArbCom ban is a much stricter sanction than an administrator's block.

(Request) Statement by John Carter

Libhtbreather has recently displayed, as per the "retirement"/socking mentioned above, a serious tendency to attempt to game the system, in addition to other problematic behavior. Considering the GAMEing probably falls outside of the i-bans, and is itself a serious issue, even without the remarkably high number of i-bans this individual seems to have accumulated, I think that there is sufficient basis for thinking ArbCom should review the behavior of those involved in this case. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Request) Note from Floq

Sooner rather than later, a clerk may want to let Lightbreather know about the 500 word limit, and about how most evidence should be saved for the evidence page if a case is accepted. She's already at 250% of the 500 word limit, and has provided evidence on only two of the 9 people that are parties or that she wants to add as parties. I don't know how you're going to handle the volume of evidence that is going to want to be provided on the evidence page, but I guess you can cross that bridge when you come to it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Four minutes?! That's impressive. I didn't know I had that kind of power. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(Request) Statement by Faceless Enemy

I've already said my piece on the unfounded SPI. I know LB had a hard time dropping it back then too, so I'm not particularly surprised that she's trying to revive it again. (I feel that Mike V deserves a ping here, since I added a link to his TP.) Whatever. Also, I don't think editing gun control articles is inconsistent with my editing history at all; the first article I edited was AK-47, and I was editing the Brady Campaign article back in May 2010. I think the original SPI was started in bad faith, and the call for it to be re-opened is being made in bad faith again. Her point about me and Godsy and anyone else who disagrees with her seems to boil down to "a pro-gun editor got banned for socking once. All other pro-gun editors must be socks!" Her paranoia about socking ain't there for Felsic/162.119.231.132 though. I don't see the issue with a merger proposal for an article that has been nominated for GA. If it's a merge worth discussing, it's worth discussing while the GA review is ongoing. As to our back and forth at the NRA page, it was predicated on the fact that she said here that she hadn't even read the edits I made. I thought after this discussion that we would be okay, as my impression at the time was that she objected to my removing content. The point of the majority of work I had done on the page was to re-add stronger sources for stuff, but she was willing to blatantly violate 3RR to keep the page at her preferred version. (NB: she edited the page afterward, but made sure that anything we disagreed on stayed the way she liked it.) Capitalismojo and Spike Wilbury may be able to comment further. I think "battleground" would be a fair word to use for how an article starts to feel when LB shows up, apparently no matter what the topic is. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:50 & ~11:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: Again, please refer to me as "they", not "he". I don't know where you've picked up the idea that I'm male. Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(Request) Statement by Mark Miller

I support accepting this case as there is clearly sufficient history for concern and a number of issues brought up above that are a bit distressing to hear. And that's a lot of Ibans.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(Request) Statement by Fae

"Battleground mentality" is manageable by other community processes. I am puzzled as to why Arbcom is keen to accept this case rather than leaving resolution to an open consensus, and the trusted users that have sufficient tools to handle this without a burdensome case. The GGTF case was not healthy for the community, this request touches some of the same sore points. Low key procedures and encouragement for improved collegiate behaviour from all parties would be a refreshing change from high profile cases and indefinite sanctions that will appear punitive to the outside viewer.

As the case is certain to be accepted, in considering actions, I hope Arbcom sees the wisdom of delegating to the wider community. --Fæ (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evidence presented by Black Kite

Current word length: 52; diff count: 1.

Canvassing at GGTF

I've no interest in this case, but I thought that this bit of canvassing by User:SlimVirgin might be worth mentioning. At other discussions (i.e. AfD) we would take this into account. A somewhat stupid thing to do, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Karanacs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

(Request) Statement by Karanacs

Lightbreather is currently a party to 4 interaction bans (mutual with Hell in a Bucket [8] and Eric Corbett [9], Mike Searson cannot interact with her [10], and she cannot interact with Sitush [11]), and over the last year she has proposed two more (Two kinds of pork [12] and Scalhotrod)[13]), 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 [14]
  • Did not like response, so she pinged specific admins [15]
  • When they didn't respond, asked on their talk pages [16] [17]
  • 25 Apr continues to bring up the same issue [18]

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. [19]. "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""
• [20] 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.[21] 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 [22]
• [23] "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: [24][25][26]
• (LB barely edited in March)
• 26 Feb When caught canvassing, speculated others were doing it [27]
• 20 Feb When asked to strike a personal attack, she tried to justify the attack [28] and referred to a 7-month-old comment that Eric made
• 12 Feb [29] 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)

@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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current word length: 991; diff count: 73.

Lightbreather exhibits a battleground mentality, indulges in WP:POINTy behavior, forum-shops, attempts to silence critics. Karanacs (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Example 1: Jan 2015 - Editor Retention

Summary: Forum-shopping, WP:Battleground, silencing critics

• WikiProject Editor Retention discussion - brainstorming strategies
• 24 Jan: Lightbreather posts loaded question [30] "how many women have been involved in these discussions?"
  • Conversation shifts to gender. LB pings 7 women.[31]
  • Eric Corbett warns that this project should not follow the path of the GGTF [32].
  • LB remark to Eric's comments [33] "I don't care how gifted someone is intellectually, if they don't know how to work with other people without alienating them, they are not good editors."
  • LB requests admin help to remove Eric's comments [34]
  • Rejected [35]
  • LB reopens it [36]
    • Project members say the comments and ensuing discussion should stay [37][38]
  • Request closed as already answered [39]

• 25 Jan
  • LB opens Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive160#Eric_Corbett
  • Eric resigns from Editor Retention [40] because LB had turned discussion to gender gap
  • At ARE, most admins weighing in say the violation is technical only; Sandstein issues a 72-hr block
  • Some go to Sandstein's talk page to protest the block. LB posts same quotes by EC [41]
  • LB gives Sandstein the Admin's Barnstar [42]

• LB posts 7-month-old quotes from Eric (out of context and unrelated to this issue) at her own talk page [43], Eric's talk page [44], WikiProject Editor Retention [45], ANI [46]

• on her own user page, (26 Jan) requests adminhelp to get ANI thread about Eric closed [47] and (29 Jan) to refactor someone else's comments on Sandstein's talk [48] because "I really don't like these rumors about me baiting EC".

Karanacs (talk) 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Example 2: Jul/Sep 2014 - Scalhotrod

Summary: WP:Battleground, wikistalking, forum-shopping, WP:Point, attempt to silence critics

3 Jul 2014 - LB says Scal has no respect for women because he edits porn articles [49]

12 Jul - Both topic-banned for edit warring [50]

27 Jul - LB joins GGTF [51]

28 Jul

• 16:01 [52] complains to admin about Scal
• 17:34 Scalhotrod joins GGTF [53]
• 18:07 [54] follows him to another user talk page with accusations of impropriety
• 19:44 LB opens ANI against Scalhotrod [55]
• 19:57 ANI closed by Hell in a Bucket as forum-shopping [56]
• [57] complains to another admin

• 21:48 As the talk page conversation continues, [58] Could you tell Scal, on his talk page, to stay off mine? I cannot promise to stay off his, because I check it once a week or so to see if he's talking about me. ... I will not tolerate being gossiped about.... Also, can you ask him to leave the Gender Gap project?

29 Jul

• [59] posts to Jimbo's talk page

31 Jul

• Announces she left GTTF because of Scalhotrod/repeats allegation he does not respect women: [60] and accuses him of Wikihounding [61]

1 Aug

• LB joins WikiProject Pornography [62], where Scalhotrod has been highly active

17 Sep

• Scalhotrod makes an edit at WP:NPA [63]. LB accuses him of stalking [64]

22 Sep 2014

• [65] opens ANI on Scalhotrod

• Proof: [66] joining GTTF, editing WP:NPA, Meta edit, his talk (28 Jul), Sue Rangell's talk

23 Sep 2014

• [67] Re Scal: "I have an overriding reason - and just the one - for keeping an eye on your talk page: because you have a history of talking about me and of accusing me of policy violations "

24 Sep 2014

• LB pings 3 specific admins to ANI [68]
• [69] "I would be happy to leave WP:PORN if Scal will leave WP:GGTF."

• Of her own actions, LB says that [70], "twist[ing] one instance of joining a project that someone else belongs to into an instance of stalking is distraction."

25 Sep 2014

• [71] Admits Scal was first editor at an article she said he stalked her to

28 Sep 2014

• started RFCU on him (deleted - Note the stated goal)

21 Jan 2015

• Requests Iban in unrelated ARE thread [72]

Karanacs (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Example 3: Gun control Feb/Apr 2015

Summary: Casting aspersions, attempts to silence critical voices, forum-shopping, ownership

• 1 Feb 2015 files SPI against Faceless Enemy [73].
• 9 Feb
  • Closed [74]
  • Requests it be reopened [75] (response [76])

beginning 19 Apr 2015

• Insinuates sockpuppetry on article talk [77]
• Response: go to SPI [78]
• LB continues on article talk [79] and user talk [80] (email [81]), and pings arbs/CU [82]
• Discussion hatted [83]
• LB unhats her insinuations [84]; reverts the reversion [85]

• Protect article at her preferred version [86]
• Invites arbs/CU to weigh in on which version should be protected [87][88][89]

• Uninvolved user brought this to AN [90] - no result (LB blocked and then Arb case opened)

Karanacs (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Battleground attitude selected examples

gender

• 28 Apr 2015 [91]; edit summary bad attitude" in man = ok. "bad attitude" in woman = NOT ok. man is assertive and complains, same behavior in woman is bitchy and nagging. (posted in response to (self-professed female) Bishonen, who had posted a rebuke to Eric [92] earlier in that conversation.)
• 12 Feb [93] canvassing is acceptable for an MFD because of the gender gap
• 24 Jan [94] should a man have asked the question
• 21 Jan 2015 [95] considering that I am a woman in a man's world (Wikipedia), and that for millenia women have learned to grin and bear it in response to aggressive male behavior
• Dec 2014 [96]
• 28 Jul 2014 [97] As a 55-year-old woman, I know what harassment is,
• 24 Jul 2014 [98] brings up her gender and sexism in a conversation that has nothing to do with either

Eric Corbett

LB posts Eric's July 2014 comments all over

• On her user page [99] Removed (after I added this to my dispute resolution sandbox) [100] edit summary not now
• 20 Feb: [101]
• 21 Jan: [102]

Karanacs (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Lightbreather

(Request) Statement by Lightbreather

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

1. EChastain

• Involvement in focus of GGTF ArbCom on her talk page,[103][104] and Mansplaining article/talk,[105] including warring with EvergreenFir at the article.[106]
  (30 July 2014 Coincidence? One week before Sue Rangell quit editing articles last August, EvergreenFir undid[107] 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)[108] and monitored[109] the Kaffeeklatsch for women.
• Nov 2014 Casting asperions.
• Mar 2015 Personal attack (in ES and discussion).

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

2. Eric Corbett

• Violated topic ban: [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115].
• 11 Jan 2015 Canvassing (campaigning).
• Casting aspersions: [116], [117], [118]
• 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,[119] he proposed merging Universal background check into it[120] - though the same proposal had been discussed recently. At National Rifle Association, he engaged in warring (with me) over its Finances section.[121][122] 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)

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)

5. Hell in a Bucket: WP:BATTLEGROUND,[123] (WP:PA, WP:BAITING) WP:INCIVILITY,[124] (gravedancing) WP:FORUM,[125][126] (WP:ASPERSIONS) WP:PNB,[127][128] WP:ARBPOL.[129] Presents himself and others as "defenders of the wiki." [130][131]

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.[132] 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current word length: 1529 (limit: 1000); diff count: 62. Evidence is too long: please reduce your submission so it fits within limits.

Response to Karanacs' evidence

Editor Retention

• 24 Jan 16:02: First part of legitimate question: I see some encouraging observations above, but I have an observation myself. Or a question...
• Karanacs flipped the chronology of "Conversation shifts" and "Eric Corbett warns."
  • 16:58 ECo "warns"?

This project seems to be heading down the same rabbit hole that the GGTF project now finds itself in....[133][134]

• 18:25 Shifts? Six of the seven women pinged were WER members. The seventh is a long-time, respected editor I've never heard a bad word about. Also note that despite the fact the he's not supposed to be discussing the GGTF and that he's obviously baiting me (he hadn't posted to WER in 10 weeks), I did not reply to his post.
• "LB remark" was to John Carter,[135] which indentation and remark[136] shows.

• 25 Jan Opened ARE after (see K's evidence) trying twice to get Eric's comments removed at WER per GGTF scope of bans. The fact is ECo broke his ban and disrupted WER.
  • If we're going to discuss use of Eric's quotes as proof of my misbehavior, let's have 'em:
    • The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce. ... Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.[137]
    • ... I really couldn't care less whether or not more women are recruited. I'm here because I think that too many of you have got your heads up your proverbial arses, attacking windmills that are simply mirages.[138]
    • If you want to quit then quit, if you don't, then don't make a song and dance about it. And above all all don't assume that you're in any way smarter than those who disagree with you, because I can assure you that you're not.[139]
  • After I challenged that first one, Eric started his WP:HARASSment campaign, and he and his wikifriends haven't let up since.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Scalhotrod

The months preceding Karanacs evidence must be considered. Here are the articles/talk pages that Scalhotrod and I edited between 5-Jan-2014 (GC ArbCom opening) and 28-Jul-2014 (when I started Stalking by SH on Callanecc's talk page).

Editor	Lightbreather 1st	Scalhotrod 1st
Articles/common[140]	26	5
Article talk/common[141]	13	5

• 3-Jul comment: I hope the arbitrators will read the whole reply that it was taken from - in context! The end of which was:

... since he feels entitled to judge me I'll say this: He has edited many dozens of porn articles and, IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women.[142]

I did not, as Karanacs paraphrased it, say that "Scal has no respect for women because he edits porn articles."

And please read Scal's statement that I was replying to.[143] As I said at the time: almost 700 words, and not one addresses the diffs I gave. It was full of WP:ASPERSIONS and he pinged three editors, including Sue Rangell and Mike Searson, and an admin to his defense. (If I did this, it would be called canvassing.) It was also during this time that Mike called me a cunt, to which Scalhotrod replied: Understood, but maybe I can get others to appreciate that....[144]

• July 2014 - Karanacs' evidence supports that Scalhotrod was stalking/WP:HOUNDing me, but here is more:
  • 26-Jul-2014 I was invited to join GGTF[145] and joined.[146]
  • 28-Jul-2014 I invited three editors.[147][148][149]
    • 17:34 Scalhotrod joined within 48 hours of me, within 1 hour of my invitation to others.[150]
    • 19:32 Drmies told Scalhotrod that his behaviors were inappropriate,[151] unseemly.[152]
    • 19:39 Drmies told Hell in a Bucket: ... in this case, I side with LB, who finds it a kind of stalking, and to tell her to walk away from that, well, that's not fair. Scal needs to walk away from LB's edits and pages, in my opinion.[153]
    • 19:44 Per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE I opened "Request for administrator to evaluate the conduct of user."[154]
    • 19:57 It was closed by HIAB - non-admin and involved editor - who labeled it "forum shopping"[155]... 13 minutes after I opened it and less than 30 minutes after Drmies questioned HIAB's comments on the matter.[156]
  • 29-Jul-2014 Drmies: ... I have seen plenty that's objectionable. ... Scalhotrod, man, you are on a short leash.[157]
• WP:PORN:
  • If we must AGF about Scal joining GGTF, then don't apply a double-standard to me.
  • Sep. 2014 - I created a porn article and made 500 improvements to others, including extensive work on 3 BLPs and 3 industry-related articles.[158]
• 25-Sep-2014 Karanacs completely misrepresented what I said. When Scal suggested that I'd stalked him to an article, I said: Your last edit on that article was three months before mine. (His appearance re mine is usually within hours/days.) Re "compliments," I said: Also, where stalking ... is concerned, uninvited compliments are just as alarming as uninvited criticism. (Any person who has been stalked can tell you this is true.)

--Lightbreather (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

His behavior

In addition to evidence in my preliminary statement[159] showing Scalhotrod very involved in gun-control and GGTF disputes, proceedings, and related WP:TALK (despite his statement to contrary[160]):

• He is literally invested in the GC debate.[161][162] [possible COI]
• Six-month TBAN from GC for EW w/me.
• Broke TBAN.[163]
• Asked for exclusion from GGTF ArbCom.
• He has proposed a Gun politics task force

I can give evidence of violations of WP:CIVIL,WP:PERSONAL,WP:AGF,WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:DE, WP:RUNAWAY, and Vote-stacking if asked.

--Lightbreather (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Gun control

• 9-Feb-2015 Admin's closing comments not "No way." Incidentally, Faceless Enemy started a SPI against me two days ago.[164] It was closed[165] with note "already confirmed Unrelated back in February" (IP-initiated SPI). So far, these IP's have started SPIs on me: 172.56.9.123 and 174.25.212.163.
• 20-Apr-2015 I unhatted "reading" part and left hatted the speculation discussion.
• 20-Apr-2015 was a suggestion to which I replied with my preference. I don't believe it was locked/protected at any version, for lack of consensus.
• I invited three arbs to weigh in because I believe Godsy is a sock - and Nazi gun control theory is the topic that started the GC ArbCom. I went to arbs' TPs because I'd heard "ping" wasn't working.
• Nine of the editors at the AN discussion questioned or opposed the proposal.[166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174]

Battleground attitude

I think that someone who says "I'm being singled out for my gender" should be given a fair hearing.... Drmies, 28-Jul-2014[175]

• 28-Apr-2015 I know Bishonen is a woman. I wasn't responding to her rebuke of Eric's WP:BAITing,[176] but her comment:

... I rather hope you people block [Lightbreather] for a long time for terminally bad attitude.[177]

• 12-Feb-2015 At nine women's projects[178] I posted this brief, neutrally worded notice:

There is a redirect discussion that may be of interest to this group.

Since I didn't know how individual members (men and women) would vote, it was not canvassing, but WP:APPNOTE.

• 24-Jan-2015 Was a good-faith effort to start a serious dialogue; the question quoted was one of seven.
• 21-Jan-2015 Please read the whole statement, and the context in which it was made.
• 17-Dec-2014 was a kindness to Neotarf after they were banned. Sitush WP:HOUNDed me there 55 minutes later, not WP:AGF on my words.[179] However, the message was a copy of one Neotarf gave me while I was retired.[180]
• 28-Jul-2014 Supports that Scalhotrod stalked/hounded me.
• 24-Jul-2014 This was during the middle of the "cunt" debates, where the word was used 20 times during this discussion alone. I'm sorry for revealing that sexism was on my mind.

Our survival analyses ... indicate that females who become contributors stop editing Wikipedia sooner than males. ...and suggest that females encounter more adversity in Wikipedia. Lam, S.; et al. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11. ACM: 9. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |first= (help)

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• 1-Mar-2015 My answer to Ca2james 2-Mar-2015 applies here, [181] but their answer is even better:

... I won't [warn Eric Corbett and Giano] because it won't make a difference to the pages and it would cause all sorts of unnecessary drama. I expect that they are familiar with WP:POLEMIC whereas I wasn't sure whether or not you were. If they're ignoring or flouting it, the last few days have shown that their behaviour is tolerated, if not condoned, by much of the community. I know that this situation doesn't conform to WP:CIVILITY and that this behavioural double standard is incredibly frustrating, but targeting them won't help and will just make things worse....[182]

• 20-Feb-2015 Was about Sitush, not ECo. That discussion and diff provides 10 pieces of evidence that Sitush WP:HOUNDs me and violates WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:SOAP, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL/WP:PA in his interactions with me.
• 21-Jan-2015 Was about Mike Searson and Scalhotrod, and supports evidence that Scal WP:HOUNDs and WP:BAITs me with WP:UNCIVIL edits.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by doncram

Current word length: 396; diff count: 0.

This case is biased against LB and amounts to fault-finding

This has to be said. Arbcom cases named after one party only are inherently unfair. Because they attract participation of anyone having a grudge against the one, only. Because it is an uphill battle to have any non-named party held to the same standard. Because by human nature it calls for biased searching against the one. And the one is out-numbered by the many, and allowing double the words does not suffice. This is happening here already in the identification of who are to be included parties and how many words are allowed. LB was working up evidence about 8 parties; it is basically a 1:8 proceeding; LB should have been allowed 8X 500 = 4,000 words rather than merely 1,000. --doncram 22:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather has participated constructively in discussions

"Evidence" provided by Karanacs narrates through some discussion at WikiProject Editor Retention in January that shows nothing bad as far as I can tell. Recapitulating it is fine but proves nothing besides it was a reasonable discussion going on about ways to retain editors, and that Lightbreather (LB) participation was reasonable and constructive.

(This statement by me will be refined by adding diffs and otherwise, but for now:) LB agreed with EC that wording of a sentence she had proposed could/should be improved, and she marked it up, and others agreed with LB's refinement.

Specifically LB asked a reasonable question whether women editors had been involved in the discussion, then Eric Corbett jumped in, and there was reasonable questioning by whether EC's participation violated a topic ban for him. One person closed that question, it was reopened politely by LB, then some more persons spoke, and it was closed by someone else. That is fine and good about discussion on the WER page.

As I recall, and will bring evidence about here, is that EC did not participate much before at WER (or at least not for a long time), seemed to arrive or speak up specifically following LB, and seemed focused on gender controversy.

So the entire discussion was fine showing collegial involvement by LB, and an eventual outcome that EC announced his departure was fine, too. What does the "evidence" support that is negative about LB? I don't see it. --doncram 22:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Gaijin42

For transparency purposes, I note that I have submitted evidence to arbcom via email. The evidence was submitted via email because it involves oversight and off-wiki based information. 3 topics were discussed, the allegations of LB's socking during the GGTF case (defending LB), On LBs accusations of EChastain Socking (partially supporting LB's assertion), and some off-wiki behavioral evidence regarding LB. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• LB engages in WP:POLEMICs against those she holds grudges with. User:Lightbreather/sandbox/Vigilantism in particular see diff [183] which targets her perennial grudge Sue. The essay is quite ironic considering how much of it applies to LB's own actions, and since she accuses others of constantly talking behind her back. for context that this refers to Sue, see discussion at [184]

• WP:OUTING [185] [186] - My recollection is that there was another outing attempt at Leo Rangell but its been oversighted out (can't even see the missing diff?) I assume the arbs can see.

• WP:HEAR Continual accusations of bias and asking for 2nd 3rd, 4th opinions (several examples in this case). I note she has accused Euralius, and salvio both of bias against her in this case, including asking for recusal, but her concern for bias apparently does not extend to an Arb that follows her on twitter.

Evidence presented by Capeo

7/26/14 The start of all this and the stick LB has never dropped is this ANI [187] over[188]. It's closed and LB goes to the closing admin 7 times in a few hours [189] to get it reopened, at one point claiming EC referred to a group of women as cunts [190] (there's no reasonable way to construe EC's statement to mean that), and finally making a new ANI section [191].

7/28/14 LB starts another high-profiled conversation, gets replies she doesn't agree with, then tells people to leave her alone [192] much like the same day on GGTF [193].

Karanacs Already covered most of the events through September I see, but there a few more worth noting.

9/5/14 Starts rather pointed editing of Cunt [194].

9/12/14 Unbidden to an EC and Sitush discussion [195].

9/20/14 LB claims of stalking [196]

9/24/14 Vote stack [197]

9/28/14 Scalhotrod ANI is closed with no action. LB goes to closing admins page close to 15 times in a couple hour span trying to get it re-opened [198]

10/3/14 Extremely pointy RFC [199].

10/14/14 Announces she is quitting [200], submits evidence two days later [201] then stops editing under her username.

11/14/14 As an IP claims to not know who LB is [202]. Adds [203] and [204] in a further attempt to hide her identity.

11/23/14 Claims privacy reasons citing legitimate purpose: Privacy - with a capital "P" though that in no way excuses her socking as her real world identity is not linked to her account [205]. Throughout socking episode she tries to get participants she's had conflict with sanctioned both at ANI and ArbCom: [206], [207], [208], [209], [210], [211], [212], [213], [214].

11/25/14 LB comes out of "retirement" [215], resumes posting [216], denies being the IP [217] then retires again [218] on the 29th. Later an SPI is opened with some of the initial evidence posted on the PD page which LB asks to have revdeled [219] and claims to have socked legitimately [220]. Complains about the other IPs that posted [221] then geolocates them all [222]. Not long after she begins trying to connect locations to anyone who disagreed with her during the case [223]. Following her block she spends the next days calling for investigations of other IPs and makes unfounded connections to users who have disagreed with her this being the last diff in a section that made many baseless accusations:[224]. Note again the privacy claim.

12/1/14 LB claims outing [225]. Three days later comes so close to outing another user a revdel is needed [226].

1/26/15 A barnstar for blocking [227].

1/28/15 Jumps into another EC AE trying for sanctions [228].

2/12/15 Edits EC's talk page [229].

2/20/15 Jumps into an ANI concerning Sitush [230] where she was not involved prior.

2/22/15 Poke at EChastain [231].

2/25/15 A rather vitriolic post about a GA [232].

2/27/15 Again makes false outing statement [233].

3/31/15 Ownership [234].

4/26/15 On EC's page unbidden again [235].

5/8/15 "Privacy" claim again [236]. Capeo (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Faceless Enemy

Lightbreather has engaged in canvassing

1. “I am pinging Felsic on this, too.” Felsic is an extremely pro gun control editor, whose most recent edit had been over a month before, and since then 6 other editors had edited the NRA page. Lightbreather chose to ping a single perceived ideological ally over people more recently involved in the article.
2. Attempted admin shopping

Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather has engaged in article ownership

1. “Let's wait until I'm home (waiting for a doc's appt) before we resume this debate.”
2. “Could an uninvolved admin please intervene?”

Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather has disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point

When a discussion here (about whether or not to include examples of assault pistols on the article page) was not going her way, Lightbreather went and deleted examples of other firearm types to prove her point.

1. [237]
2. [238]
3. [239]
4. [240]

Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather has edit warred without even reading the content she was edit warring over

“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. [241]
2. [242]
3. [243]
4. (3RR violation)

Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather considers her own opinion to be equal to that of several editors

“and not dropping it even though several editors have agreed that ‘loophole’ is not a pejorative.” (My reply) Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather alleges socking in bad faith

1. Her SPI against me is closed
2. Brings it back up with closing admin, where further evidence is provided that she is wrong.
3. [244]
4. [245]
5. Attacked two other users she has had content disputes with, Godsy and Gaijin42.

Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather is either incompetent or edits in bad faith

Insists that the Second Amendment “regulates” the right to keep and bear arms ([246] [247] [248] [249] [250]), something no gun control or gun rights group has ever said, then offers a “compromise” that is heavily biased towards gun control. Either she doesn’t understand sentence structure, or she was offering a sacrificial straw man so that she could later say that she compromised. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather has engaged in general battleground conduct

1. After Capitalismojo found an older disclaimer for a website LB wanted to use that strongly questioned its reliability, she emailed the source so that they changed their disclaimer.
2. Brings gender up wherever possible.

Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Reply to Lightbreather's evidence

• Scalhotrod's NRA membership is not a conflict of interest. He is not an NRA lobbyist. He has given them money - just as many people donate to many organizations. The accusation of a COI is so incredibly absurd that I'm forced to question either your WP:COMPETENCE or your WP:GOODFAITH. You're either oblivious as to how the NRA works, oblivious as to how the conflict of interest policy works, or you're just throwing mud around and hoping some of it sticks. You're plenty smart, so I'd bet on the latter. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Scalhotrod

Misleading presentation of evidence

I'd like to start by pointing out that the Accused, while they are entitled to their personal opinion, has a pattern of presenting evidence either in a completely misleading manner or in such a way that the particular dif is an out of context example with regard to the entire conversation, i.e. cherry picking. This same claim can be said of the evidence presented here as well. I encourage the Arbitrators to fully examine each dif and backtrack it to read its entire context. My apologies for the significant increase in reading this will lead to.

I would like to highlight one particular example. The entry is this...

• Asked for exclusion from GGTF ArbCom.

This is not what was requested, nor is it the full story of what transpired. When I brought its nature to light, it was deleted by one of the Arbitrators.

The original request here was in regard to evidence that LB posted in an ArbCom proceeding[251]. The actual text presented was this...

• [252] Eric Corbett replied: [The] easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one. Baiting at least. Others agreed that it was a personal attack.
• [253] Scalhotrod replies to Eric's comment: "Brilliantly put!"

This was a grossly misstated version of what was actually stated. Which was, quoting another User, "'Added to which incivility as it tends to be invoked here on WP more often than not simply means saying something I don't agree with, or upsets me.' - Brilliantly put!!!"

I brought this situation up a second time here. In this instance Clerk Penwhale replied, but it was Arbitrator Salvio that took action stating, "However, I agree that, in context, that statement is misleading; I have therefore removed it without prejudice against it being reintroduced, if rephrased in a way which makes it clear what happened and what statement Scal was actually agreeing with."[254] Salvio then removed the statement here with the Edit summary, "that's misleading, please rephrase if you wish to add it back".

Now it is being submitted again, in just as misleading of a manner albeit with a different presentation.

POV Editing - Due vs. Undue content

• From early on in LBs editing, a statement in regard to gun politics, "my observation is that I am the only 'pro-control' editor here"[255]

• Quote by LB, speaks to the topic assault weapons, but seems to be applied elsewhere, "What I'm seeing in regards to this topic - and have seen for some months - is a push by a number of editors who don't seem to want to acknowledge to Wikipedia readers that there are in-force assault weapons bans, or that there ever was any assault weapons ban except for the federal ban that expired 10 years ago."[256]

• In April 2014 in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, LB began to add references to "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines"[257]. It was reverted[258] and LB added it back[259] and it was reverted again[260] and then a Talk page discussion was started[261]. Multiple Editors tried to explain that the terms LB was using were not NPOV and did not improve the article. After posting a wall of sources[262] and not convincing others of their viewpoint, LB finally created the article Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting that same day.[263] Later LB inserted a link to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 2013[264] which ties back to the above quotes from LB.

Personal Attacks and non-AGF

• LB seems to hold the belief that anyone speaking about their edits or general activities is a personal attack against them, there are just too many difs to research and list, but I think this demonstrates my point. LB admits to following others to see if they are talking about LB "I cannot promise to stay off his [Talk page], because I check it once a week or so to see if he's talking about me."[265] This was after I proposed an IBan. This attitude seemingly lead to the problem on Eric Corbett's Talk page with Eric and Sitush which resulted in more IBans.

• In an ArbCom Enforcement against me, LB stated "He has edited many dozens of porn articles and, IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women."[266] at ArbCom enforcement, was not admonished for it, and then repeated and tried to justify it on the GGTF Talk page.[267]

• This was in addition to attacking me just for joining the GGTF.[268]

Tendentious Editing and Ownership

• In 2015 LB began adding gender discrimination and sexism subsections in Silicon Valley under the heading "Diversity" which later became "Demographics", started with a reversion,[269] I have edited this article as well. Adding this material isn't a bad thing if its NPOV, but in some instances it read like an attack piece using only the highest profile companies in the region as examples, not an encyclopedic presentation of information by a scholarly source evaluating the region or its section of the industry.[270][271][272] Granted, LB made some conscientious edits as well, but across a 2 day span made over 50 edits and Edit warred a bit[273] stating that they are "Restoring subsection, which I will be expanding tomorrow using some of the 20+ sources listed on the talk page." And LB did just that with a heading of "Sexism, misogyny, and sexual harassment".[274] Rather WP:POINTy for a Talk page section.

• Assault weapons legislation in the United States - When LB created this article it was titled Assault Weapons Ban[275][276] and to focus solely on that subject with an emphasis on "ban". When others, myself included, tried to expand the article, LB resisted. This included changing the article's title to the above. It started with an RfC[277] then before that closed a More Request was initiated[278] followed by a request to the closing Admin to review the Move Request because it didn't work out in LB's favor[279]. All the while, there was a WP:MOVEWAR going on of which I was the main proponent and part of why LB and I were given a 6 month Topic ban. But this article was a mess from the start, when others stepped in LB took offense, but it turned into what I consider a decently informative article even it it was not what LB intended.

• National Rifle Association - The stats speak for themselves: Created Aug 2002, LB joined WP in March 2007; there have been over 1,300 distinct Editors, LB is responsible for (currently) 400 edits, 11.27% of the total. The inflexibility, arguing over exact wording, which sources to use, refusal to accept consensus, and just plain stubbborness with regard to any change to their content or use of sources is exasperatingly prohibitive.

It's bad enough that a separate and distinct Criticism (with its own article redirect) section exists in this article, but LB has moved it to the top or near the top of the article several times. I know the difs exist and will do my best to find them, but its a huge list to sift through.

Most recently the section describing the Finances of the organization has been a Coatrack of LBs to accentuate that the group receives funding from the industry it represents and highlight that it includes gun manufacturers. Why the revelation that a Lobbyist group receives funding from the industry and consumers it represents is so important to LB, I'm not sure, but it seems critical. In addition to the Talk page discussions[280], a NPOVN posting was started over the wording to describe sources of funding for the group.[281]

• Source and content "preservation" - LB also has a habit of using the Talk page to save sources for later use.[282] It's not the first instance and other have commented that its an odd behavior.

• In a recent ANI where Lightbreather claimed that Editors were using her injury and lack of internet access to take advantage of articles she's been editing.[283] This issue was revisited on the NRA article Talk page.[284][285]

Not here

https://twitter.com/Lightbreather LB announced this on Jimbo's Talk page in August of last year.[286] If its so easy for LB to bash the project, why be here.

Response to COI accusation

• The Accused has accused me of having a COI with the NRA based on my level of membership. LB has also stated that they are a member[287], so I'm not sure what difference an amount of money donated makes. I actually got a discount on my membership upgrade and LB's external link made me realize just how good of a deal I got.

• As for much of the rest, I'm having a hard time understanding its point, let alone responding to it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.