Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer
- Please note that User:Lightbringer has since been renamed to User:Lightbringer (usurped - blocked). User:LightBringeris unrelated to the subject of this case.
Case Opened on 01:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Case Closed on 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
Involved parties
Complaining Witnesses
- MSJapan (talk · contribs)
- DreamGuy (talk · contribs)
- WegianWarrior (talk · contribs)
- Pjacobi (talk · contribs)
- Spinboy (talk · contribs)
- CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs)
- Jachin (talk · contribs)
- SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs)
Nominal defendant
- talk · contribs)
Statements by Complaining Witnesses
Statement by MSJapan
I have shown him clearly and objectively why his edits were refused, yet he stll persists in making and remaking the same edits. He ranted about a Washington Post article being removed, when it was a copyright violation in the first place. He cited a book unconnected with Freemasonry except via its author's status as a Mason as a source for Freemasons worshipping Satan. He took another quote out of context, in the process removing the statemrnt that the quote's existence is not disputed; only the interpretation.
This constant need to revert edits is causing we the editors to have to spend more time fixing the Freemasonry article than we do contributing to the polishing up of the article by adding citations.
Furthermore, from looking at the talk pages, Lightbringer is confusing facts and trying to support conspiracy theories with other conspiracy theories. He would rather post material that is supportive of his point of view, even if they havebeen proved to be factually inaccurate or clearly violate copyrights. His recent actions have spurred a revert war, the article is now at a length warning, and a request has been made to lock the article. This is getting out of hand and really needs to be dealt with swiftly. MSJapan 02:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The article was locked, with the result that the Talk page is now a mess. There also seems to have been complaints made on Lightbringer's Talk page regarding some bad edits to
Since the lock on the article expired,
Statement by DreamGuy
I'll try to keep this brief.
Statement by WegianWarrior
I'll try to be short and to the point. In my opinion,
Statement by Pjacobi
I've stumbled over Lightbringer's edits in Taxil hoax, [1], [2], [3]. I've reverted the first two ones, because they looked rather strange and like a complete unsourced reversal of the article. As the third one was at least formally semi-reasonable, I didn't revert that one but asked on the talk page [4] and informed Lightbringer [5]. The reversal was later done by others, no party using the talk page. --Pjacobi 20:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I did that last revert, because I couldn't even get through the first sentence without tripping over the grammar. :-)
I'm willing to consider reverting my change and trying to clean up instead, but I'm not sure there's much point.--SarekOfVulcan 23:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)- Reverted. --SarekOfVulcan 23:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Statement by Spinboy
I don't contribute to the Freemasonry article regularly, just a minor edit here or there to revert edits. I should also note I am not a mason. If you look at Lightbrigher's contributions, you can see he purposely seeks out articles related to mason's, and reverts edits where he believes masons have undue influence, in fact, he'll go out to tip the balance of an article.
Comments he has made in his edit summaries:
- revert vandalism of link by Masonic Hysteric
- restored deletion vandalism by extremely P.O.V. biased and intolerant Masonic editor who has had many complaints made against him across Wikipedia
- reverted vandalism by junior member of Masonic Sockpuppetry Tagteam
- reverted deletions of links to NYT & Washington Post and additional quotes about Lucifer, plus MS Japans latest Masonic Propaganda deletions and cut and past copyright violations
As can be seen, he does not contribute to any article that isn't involved with masons, or that he believes is involved with masons. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Statement by CambridgeBayWeather
While involved in RC patrol I came across what appeared to be a copyrighted article on
Statement by Jachin
Whilst carrying out regular maintenance of the Freemasonry article and various other articles over the past month I have come to know Lightbringer through his vandalism of various articles to his POV. Unfortunately Lightbringer will not accept the consensus of the many learned editors of articles and instead runs with slanderous nonsense and political points of view on the subject matter in great detail. He has broken the three revert rule so often that he is now astro-turfing and sock puppeting to make his case look less grave. The Freemasonry article is a dead end for us editors whilst he is still allowed to edit it as no matter what happens he will change it to his original update regardless. This situation is exceptionally frustrating, if it can be dealt with swiftly then I recommend that as we can't edit our regular articles with this comotion going on. Jachin 21:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Statement by SarekOfVulcan
I would like to call attention to [6], where Lightbringer removes comments against him and restructures the page in a way he seems to feel will be more advantageous to him. This seems to be to be fairly typical of his edit style on the talk pages of the articles he's been working on.
Statement by Lightbringer
This complaint is the latest in a series of spurious actions against me by a group of Pro-Masonry P.O.V. editors who seek to completely monopolize the Freemasonry entry on Wikipedia. They delete links and critical paragraphs in an arbitrary manner.
The First two thirds of the Freemasonry page are pro-masonic and largely consist of material apparently removed from Masonic websites. The last third, or quarter of the article are criticisms, and within the criticisms are a healthy rebuttal by the pro-masonic crowd. The links section is again two thirds pro, one third critical.
I seek a balanced article and I believe we have one there at the moment I write these words 10:35, 17 October 2005.
We had a freeze on the page, a cooling off period. Once the period ended the same cast of characters began deleting all of the links and entries like they had done previously. I tried my best to revert the article to it's previous state but was simply outnumbered by the Masonic editors.
I recommend you freeze the page at the point I indicated above which will provide your readers a balanced and interesting article.
Preliminary decisions
Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)
- Accept Fred Bauder 22:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. James F. (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- Accept ➥the Epopt 04:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Accept. Kelly Martin 23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Temporary injunction
1)
- Passed 5 to 0 at 14:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Final decision
All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)
Principles
No Personal Attacks
1)
- Passed 7 to 0 at 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
NPOV
2)
- Passed 7 to 0 at 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
What Wikipedia is not
3)
- Passed 7 to 0 at 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Findings of fact
Personal attacks
1) Lightbringer (
- Passed 7 to 0 at 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong POV regarding Freemasonry
2) Lightbringer (
- Passed 6 to 0 at 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
Lightbringer placed on personal attack parole
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.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
2) Lightbringer () 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.
- Passed 6 to 0 at 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Lightbringer banned
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer is modified to include the following remedy:
In light of his continued and flagrant violation of his restrictions using sockpuppets, as documented by
- Passed 6 to 0 at 11:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Enforcement
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
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
- In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Log of blocks and bans
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
- 01:27, 12 April 2006 Jpgordon (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Lightbringer (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 year (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lightbringer)
- 23 January, ban reset to 15 January 2007 per Thatcher131 12:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)]
- Lightbringer was blocked indefinitely following a community agreed ban.
- Please note that User:Lightbringer has since been renamed to User:Lightbringer (usurped - blocked). User:LightBringer is unrelated to the subject of this case. Risker (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)]