Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please note that User:Lightbringer has since been renamed to User:Lightbringer (usurped - blocked). User:LightBringer is unrelated to the subject of this case.

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Lightbringer[edit]

1) Lightbringer (talk · contribs) is banned from editing all articles which relate to freemasonry pending resolution of this matter.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 18:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (Without prejudice to the possibility of banning other editors.)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC) As per Kelly.[reply]
  4. As per Kelly. James F. (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 21:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Temporary editing restrictions[edit]

2) Based on their history of reverting with respect to articles relating to freemasonry, Lightbringer (talk · contribs), Victrix (talk · contribs), XDev (talk · contribs), Spinboy (talk · contribs), Jachin (talk · contribs), MSJapan (talk · contribs), DreamGuy (talk · contribs), SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs), and Grazon (talk · contribs) are banned from editing articles which relate to freemasonry pending a decision in this matter.

Support:
  1. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC) Lightbringer was the main problem.[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Opinion withdrawn until I have a chance to review more closely. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

No Personal Attacks[edit]

1) Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 14:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. →Raul654 21:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

NPOV[edit]

2) Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 14:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. →Raul654 21:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

What Wikipedia is not[edit]

3) Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 15:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. →Raul654 21:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Personal attacks[edit]

1) Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made personal attacks, calling his opponents "swine" and "base cowards and coniving liars." He later corrected the spelling of "conniving," and then expressed his hope that no one took offense at the swine comment. He responded to User:Scimitar's comment about the inappropriate use of his talk page with name-calling and demeaning instructions.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 14:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. →Raul654 21:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC) - the latter comment is particularly egregious[reply]
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Strong POV regarding Freemasonry[edit]

2) Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a strong point of view regarding Freemasonry, which is his primary reason for editing Wikipedia. His edits reflect that passionate POV.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 14:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 14:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Jayjg (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

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

Lightbringer placed on personal attack parole[edit]

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

Support:
  1. James F. (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Certainly, this.[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 20:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 04:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Lightbringer banned for two months[edit]

2) Lightbringer is banned for two months for making personal attacks.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 20:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 04:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC) He was agitated and provoked, having been blocked unexpectedly.[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Not entirely sure if this is too strong (or too weak, for that matter); thoughts? Too strong, I think, on reflection. James F. (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Switched from support; I'll defer to James' judgement on this. Raul654 10:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC) -- moved to abstain until I can review based on Fred's and James' comments. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbringer banned from Freemasonry-related subjects for one year[edit]

3) The temporary injunction passed above shall continue in more permanent form: Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned for one year from any edits related to Freemasonry in any article. He may edit talk pages. "Related to Freemasonry" shall be interpreted broadly, and the titular subject of the article is irrelevant; if the edit is deemed "related to Freemasonry", Lightbringer is in violation of this decision.

Support:
  1. ➥the Epopt 20:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC) - if proposal 4 does not pass.[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Raul654 10:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too weak, there is no reasonable prospect of a significant change. Fred Bauder 04:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Lightbringer banned from Freemasonry-related subjects and talkpages indefinitely[edit]

4) Lightbringer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned indefinitely from editing any article or talk page related to freemasonry. "Related to freemasonry" shall be interpreted broadly, and the titular subject of the article is irrelevant; if the edit is deemed "related to freemasonry", Lightbringer is in violation of this decision.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 03:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 23:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC) In lieu of 3, of course.[reply]
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC) I've changed my mind. He doesn't need to edit talk page, either. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Situation doesn't seem likely to improve. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Kelly Martin (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC) I would prefer to allow him to be allowed to edit talk pages. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Lightbringer may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses, if he edits any article or talk page which relates to freemasonry. After 5 blocks the maximum length of a block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 04:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 03:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Everything has passed, and it seems sufficient. James F. (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Concur with James. Raul654 01:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Concur. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close Fred Bauder 03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ➥the Epopt 15:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now closed.
James F. (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lightbringer/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037733902"