Shortcut
Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Lightbreather

Initiated by Lightbreather at 23:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Lightbreather arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Gun control topic ban - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Gun_control_topic-ban
  2. Restricted to one account - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Restricted_to_one_account
  3. 1RR - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_1RR
  4. Reverse topic ban - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Reverse_topic_ban
  5. Interaction bans - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather#Lightbreather:_Interaction_bans_taken_over_(alternate)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • [1] of notification Karanacs
  • [2] of notification Mike Searson
  • [3] of notification Sitush
  • [diff of notification Scalhotrod] (not possible)
Information about amendment request

Statement by Lightbreather

I successfully appealed my site ban in September 2022. Although I would have liked to have all restrictions removed at that time, it seemed like asking for too much, so I only requested lifting the site ban. I stated at the time that I would wait at least 12 months before asking to remove the other restrictions. The appeal can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1111600387#Lightbreather_unban_appeal, and what I wrote in "Dear community" stands: my promises and resolve since then remain unchanged.

In the two years since my site ban was lifted I have made hundreds of edits to dozens of articles, including the creation of two biographies (P. B. Young and Amy Kelly). I have abided by my restrictions and believe I have proved myself, as I promised.

Thank you for your consideration.

  • @Sdrqaz: Yes, those statements are still true. (The only situation I might revert more than once would be for vandalism, though I'd more likely report it at the vandalism noticeboard.) As for recent inactivity, I think that will probably be a pattern for me: Edit for some length of time (days, weeks, or months) and then, out of choice or necessity, be inactive when my energy is directed elsewhere.
There is one other website that I have volunteered at for nearly 14 years, without incident. If the committee wishes to know my identity there, I will be happy to email the link. Lightbreather (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sdrqaz: To answer your follow-up question: Some might ask, If she doesn't plan to do the things she was banned from doing, then why lift the bans? Then again, if she doesn't plan to do those things, why keep the bans? More than that, the existence of the restrictions cause me social pain, like a badge of shame. I'd like to think after nearly 10 years I could remove the badge. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Karanacs

Statement by Mike Searson

Statement by Sitush

I haven't seen much of LB since her return, partly because I am less active due to health concerns and partly because she was and always will be bad news. She continued her antics off-wiki after being sent away, taking her attacks to various Wiki-critique sites etc - at least some of those should be documented. I know this will count for nothing because WP is far too forgiving but my opinion is that this is a leopard and the spots will not change. If she is doing good work in the areas to which she is currently restricted then let her continue there - we have plenty of other contributors who can edit the areas where she is restricted. - Sitush (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Before I fully refresh my memory on this case, just a note regarding the interaction bans:

This means the first three bans are largely academic and the committee should not wait for them to respond but Sitush's opinion (should they choose to epxress one) should be taken into consideration. There was a significant amount of private information around this case (when I was on the committee), which arbcom would do well to review before making a decision. Thryduulf (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Moneytrees

I don't know about everything else here, but I will say that the Scalhotrod Iban can be removed; AC has the history there, and the chances of them editing again is 0. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

LB and I have differed in the past. I'm glad she's back, water under the bridge, etc. The one request that should not be reversed in the one account rule, in my opinion. That's all a person needs. Everything else can be safely vanished, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Kenneth Kho}

I echo Carrite's sentiment, and I tend to regard lifting 10-years-old restrictions as low risk. But I also agree with arbs, who stated her edit volume has been low, about 400 edits since 2022, out of 17600 edits since 2007. I propose lifting all sanctions if @Lightbreather agrees to voluntarily comply with current sanctions until she reached 19000 edits through substantive edits! Kenneth Kho (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Lightbreather: Clerk notes

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

Lightbreather: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Hello, Lightbreather. I'm looking through the history of your case, but I would like to hear your response on a couple of items for now: in the 2022 appeal, you said I won't edit gun, gun control, or gun politics articles or comment on associated talk pages. Not just because of my topic ban, but also because I do not want to edit there. The topic still interests me as a person, but not as a Wikipedia editor. Are this and your 2022 comments regarding edit-warring still true? Could you also please comment on your recent inactivity? Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the reply, Lightbreather. This may seem like a silly question (I can think of several plausible answers), but if the statements at the 2022 appeal are true, why do you want those restrictions lifted? To be clear, I'm referring to the first three restrictions that you've listed. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recused. - Aoidh (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of history to read here, and I've looked through a lot of it so far. My initial thought is that they haven't made enough edits since being unbanned to reach extended-confirmed, so there's not much here to base our decision on. I also noted that ~50 of those edits were to User:Lightbreather/Push is a myth which points to the same issues they were initially banned for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The essay displays a lack of having gotten over (or at least an inability to not pick at the scabs of) their earlier on-wiki disputes and their writing it within a few days of their unban isn't great. That it makes up a little over 10 percent of their edits since being unbanned also doesn't inspire confidence. That, combined with their overall low activity and Elli's concerns makes me a decline, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to review much of the context, but also not sure how I feel about the timing of this. Coming back after half a year with no edits to immediately appeal a t-ban isn't usually what I like to see. Elli (talk | contribs) 07:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Elli and SFR; PERM and resysop requests will often be declined if they come immediately after a long hiatus, and in addition there has not really been enough editing with restrictions to show they have been effective. Primefac (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I'll vote decline on this appeal due to the lack of activity pointed out by the other arbitrators above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm generally supportive of removing decade-old individual editing restrictions such as these for active editors, with the exception of the one account restriction. However, the qualifier there is 'active editors' — the lack of any edits by LB for the past 6 months, and very few in the past two years, make it hard to assess with any level of confidence whether it's the right decision or not to remove them. If you edit for a few months with no issues and come back here, my willingness to support will be a lot stronger. Daniel (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absent something more substantial here, I'd decline this request. Time is a great healer, and I can imagine that I would support this request in the future, however, we just don't have enough evidence of good quality editing. There was an initial flurry after being unbanned, but outside that first 6 months, and prior to this request, there are less than 50 edits in 2 years. WormTT(talk) 10:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:A/R/A
No tags for this post.