Shortcuts WP:ARM WP:ARBM This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. Make a motion (Arbitrators only) You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	7
2–3	6
4–5	5

Support

1. Proposed, and noting that in her appeal Lightbreather confirmed she would be staying away from Gun Control articles, so there is no need to remove the topic ban. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per WTT. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5. Katie^talk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain / Recuse

• Striking my support for an unban for the moment. The concerns brought by the community need to be considered before we make a final decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks, please add each of the following passing bullet points to the list of rescinded restrictions in the final motion.

---

• one account restriction (4.3.3)

Support

1. I do not see this as a legitimate concern. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Lightbreather does not have a pattern of sockpuppetry that would require this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. For clarity, a "support" vote on these restrictions means support for lifting them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. There hasn't been any sockpuppetry in five years, as far as we're aware. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. per all the above Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. If she was going to sock, she'd have done it by now. Katie^talk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain / Recuse

---

• one revert restriction (4.3.4)

Support

1. I support lifting the restriction. It would have been quite reasonable as an alternative to the site-ban that was passed, but I do not believe it is necessary five years later. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't think this will be necessary with the gun control TBAN in place. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm not aware of any issues of edit warring outside of the gun control topic area, and even those are 5 years old. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. - an admin needn't wait for 3 reverts to determine that edit-warring is problematic, hence I trust that any infractions that skirt but not transgress 3RR will be viewed with past history and current circumstances in mind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I would prefer this remains in place for the time being on the understanding that if Lightbreather returns to editing productively, it can be removed in 6 months. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Worm That Turned. After six months of editing I'd be happy to look at lifting this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Although I support lifting the ban, there was good reason for it at the time, and I'd prefer to leave this particular restriction in place for now, per the above comments would be happy to reconsider in six months. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'd rather come back to this after six months of productive editing. Katie^talk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain / Recuse

---

• Reverse topic ban (4.3.5)

Support

1. I do not believe this is a "good" restriction. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. I only supported this in the original case because I thought it could be an alternative to a full siteban. Now that Lightbreather has spent five years away from the project I don't think such a harsh restriction will be helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per WTT and GW. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. This was an interesting idea, but we really have no precedent for this kind of complex restriction, and this seems a poor time to try it out. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not a fan of this type of tailored restriction. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per GW. Katie^talk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain / Recuse

---

Split out interaction bans below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Interaction bans which have been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6) Support Partial support. Three of the four interaction bans are with editors who have left the project, each under very different circumstances (one globally banned, one locally banned, one retired). I do not think it is necessary to keep those interaction bans on the books. The fourth is with a still-active editor and it probably makes sense to leave that one alone at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Oppose I am hesitant to remove interaction bans in any circumstances, as I do not consider them stigmatised sanctions, but rather an acceptance that two people cannot get along. I am aware that there are 1-way interaction bans, which I am less happy about, but I would hope that Lightbreather might consider appealing these separately at ARCA in the future. WormTT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Can be looked at later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] Abstain / Recuse

---

• One way Interaction ban with Mike Searson which has been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)

Support

Oppose

1. I am hesitant to remove interaction bans in any circumstances, as I do not consider them stigmatised sanctions, but rather an acceptance that two people cannot get along. I am aware that there are 1-way interaction bans, which I am less happy about, but I would hope that Lightbreather might consider appealing these separately at ARCA in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is a one-way interaction ban from Mike Searson interacting with Lightbreather. As I mention below I'm not a big fan of one-way IBANs, but I also see no reason to lift this unless Mike Searson requests it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mike Searson has been retired for over a year in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Unless Mike Searson tells us otherwise. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. Mike Searson would need to appeal this. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per all the above. If and when Mike returns to editing they can ask for this to be lifted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain / Recuse

---

• Interaction ban with Eric Corbett which has been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)

Support

1. Eric Corbett is currently banned, and I don't feel comfortable discussing him in his absence, beyond saying that an interaction ban with someone no longer here is largely moot. If Eric were to return, we can address this issue at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. As EC is currently banned and the chances of him returning seem slim. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I am hesitant to remove interaction bans in any circumstances, as I do not consider them stigmatised sanctions, but rather an acceptance that two people cannot get along. I am aware that there are 1-way interaction bans, which I am less happy about, but I would hope that Lightbreather might consider appealing these separately at ARCA in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain / Recuse

1. Recuse. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Recuse Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Abstain. Katie^talk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

• One-way Interaction ban with Sitush which has been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)

Support

1. I'm generally not a fan of one-way interaction bans so would like to try lifting this. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per GW. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. I am hesitant to remove interaction bans in any circumstances, as I do not consider them stigmatised sanctions, but rather an acceptance that two people cannot get along. I am aware that there are 1-way interaction bans, which I am less happy about, but I would hope that Lightbreather might consider appealing these separately at ARCA in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Unless Sitush tells us otherwise. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain / Recuse

1. Removing this would probably be harmless at this point, but unlike the others users mentioned in this section, Sitush is still an active editor, so holding off pending any comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'd like to hear from Sitush first. Katie^talk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. per Katie Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Interaction ban with Scalhotrod which has been taken over by the Arbitration Committee (4.3.6)

Support

1. Given the behaviour of Scalhotrod leading to his global ban, I am willing to remove the this. Worm^TT(talk) 15:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support, given that Scalhotrod has been globally banned and this seems unneeded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per above. – Joe (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. rather moot given the global ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. As above. Katie^talk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. – bradv🍁 15:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain / Recuse

These motions should be enacted 24 hours after 4 net votes in support of closing.

Support

Oppose

• Lightbreather has come to the committee requesting to return to editing. As this was a full arbitration case, there should be a public motion to rescind the site ban. In discussion, some arbitrators felt that there were too many restrictions left upon Lightbreather given the passage of time, and so we decided to look at these at the same time. Worm^TT(talk) 10:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I've just copyedited slightly to make it clear that the additional items are existing restrictions we're considering rescinding, not additional restrictions we're considering imposing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Could the interaction bans be considered separately now? I would like to recuse from one party but vote on the others if possible. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've split out the Interaction bans. Newyorkbrad are you ok to vote again separately. Worm^TT(talk) 15:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pudeo: I'm not sure I've parsed your comment correctly so I'll respond to both possible interpretations: If you're saying LB didn't retire, but rather was banned, that's arguable but I'd note that post was made 15 days before the ban was enacted and it was in fact her last edit outside of the arbcom case that was ongoing at that time. If what you are saying is that it's flatly untrue that she was the subject of sexual harassment, I can assure that she most certainly was. It was off-wiki. Ask anyone who was on the functionaries team or arbcom around the time of her ban, we all saw it. It was pretty awful. That doesn't excuse her behavior on-wiki, which is why she was still banned, but it did happen, and was one of the FoF in the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ealdgyth: We did have significant discussion of this on our mailing list, both amongst ourselves and dialogue with Lightbreather, before this motion was posted. And I for one am very aware of how disruptive LB was in the past, as I'm sure other arbs are as well. So it is safe to say that we had considered our positions before this motion was posted. That being said, this isn't just a formality. I'm willing to reconsider my vote if something compelling is brought into the discussion. But I also wrote WP:ROPE and am a big fan of second chances for those who seem sincere in their desire not to repeat their past mistakes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Thryduulf: LB has discussed the other restrictions with us, and that's why we're voting on them here instead of simply unblocking and leaving them all in place. Katie^talk 15:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Ealdgyth: I suspect that if any problems are to recur, they will be obvious and able to be dealt with promptly without a huge deal of fuss. Hence I felt it was worth a second chance after five years. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All users – not just committee members – are welcome to comment here.

• Noticed the AN notification. What is there to discuss? The unblock motion itself has already almost passed without any community input, and the ArbCom has not shed any light as to what the appeal included. There is no way to examine or comment on it. I suppose it isn't such a big deal if the gun control topic ban stays, but you should remember that Lightbreather was also a part of the Gender Gap Task Force ArbCom case, although wasn't named as a party for some reason, despite playing a prominent role around the issue. Also, there was a lengthy rejected ArbCom request called Civility in August 2014. The current statement on Lightbreather's userpage, "RETIRED DUE TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT", is a flatly untrue WP:GRUDGE claim, which is a bit odd. So drama isn't, and won't be, restricted to just gun control. --Pudeo (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I just re-read the whole #Findings of fact section in the designated case. The disruptive editing was extensive in so many ways that things rarely get that far. Well, the appeal must have been good, especially given the stance completely opposite to WP:NOTTHEM at the time. Apparently the timing of this appeal coincides with Lightbreather's first comment in years on an off-site Wikipedia criticism forum in a thread where her nemesis', Two kinds of pork's, new alias was allegedly uncovered. --Pudeo (talk) 20:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Beeblebrox, thank you for your comments above. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pudeo, thanks for the strikethrough. This might also be a good opportunity to reflect on why your first instinct was to reflexively (and wrongly) claim that Lightbreather was lying about being sexually harassed, even though you didn't have the first clue what you were talking about. MastCell ^Talk 06:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the off-site sexual harassment was real, and more extensive than I remembered. But as Beeblebrox responded, there were two interpretations. Retiring after the evidence phase of an ArbCom case named after you, in which a mountain of evidence of wrong-doing was posted, isn't a real retirement. Especially from someone that had already retired twice[1][2]. That's more of a "you can't fire me, I quit" type of a thing with no self-reflection on own conduct. --Pudeo (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not exactly getting the impression that the committee is really going to listen to the input of the community, since it's well on the way to passing. I'd love to know what managed to sway folks to an unban given all the problems detailed in the #Findings of fact section of the decision, but ... again, this sure looks like a done deal. I have my doubts, but ... whatever. --Ealdgyth (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, well, color me not quite so sure that "if any problems are to recur, they will be obvious and able to be dealt with promptly without a huge deal of fuss". The "they will be obvious" part isn't the issue ... it's the "promptly without a huge deal of fuss" part that I'm disbelieving. And are the arbs going to be the ones enforcing that "promptly without a huge deal of fuss" or is it going to be left up to some poor soul like Karanacs to have to bring another ArbCom case just to get disruption dealt with? We'll leave aside the issue that the arbcom case was in mid-2015, and that pretty much is the end of Karanacs' active participation in Wikipedia? Are we going to lose other productive editors like Karanacs in the future just so some arbs can feel good about letting someone have a second chance? What's the cost? Will we lose Sitush next? Or Dennis again? --Ealdgyth (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Five years is a long time, and while the original ban was justified, it may no longer serve a preventative purpose. If Lightbreather wishes to contribute positively and assures us that the conduct in the 2015 case will not recur, I would welcome her back. Given that it's already passed, I assume that assurance was given and is believable. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Lightbreather was a central player in some of the most contentious and divisive ArbCom cases leading up to the ban those years ago. Will the community be able to read the appeal to understand what has changed between now and then? Mr Ernie (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If the appeal has convinced the Committee that the very extensive disruptive editing that resulted in the ban will not reoccur, and Lightbreather understands that (a) her editing will be closely scrutinised and (b) any disruption will almost certainly result in a swift (re-)imposition of sanctions (including a community ban) then I see no reason to deny the appeal. I'd rather the other restrictions remain in place until separately appealed though. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KrakatoaKatie: I understand why you are discussing them, but I would still rather see them all appealed publicly. There is nothing in the restrictions that would prevent her returning productively in the short term and only the reverse topic ban beyond that and with no restriction on when they may be appealed there seems to be no real benefit to not hearing the appeal publicly. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm fine with yinz lifting the site ban, but I think the i-bans (With Eric, Sitush, and Mike), topic ban, and revert restriction should remain. The disruption that lead to her ban was extensive and widespread. I have little doubt that the community will enact the reverse topic ban if she goes back to testing the community's patience. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Discouraging since Arb seems to have already made up its mind on this and isn't really listening to the community. I would oppose simply because drama seemed to constantly follow her, and I don't see this as a net positive. Lifting any restrictions would make it a double problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dennis Brown, we've been discussing this for a little while, so it's not surprising that arbs have current views, however I'm not seeing anything from the community that can't be mitigated with the remaining restrictions and knowledge that she would be under scrutiny. I'm certainly willing to listen to counterpoints on that though, as I'm sure are other arbs. I'll also note that this set of motions have a "close" motion which hasnt started yet. There's still time for participation. Worm^TT(talk) 12:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see anything here to change my mind. No information was introduced, so all I can go by is the past, and the past was full of drama. I haven't seen many people who were known for drama come back and not cause drama. We don't change our spots. We can change our methods, maybe even our words, but that isn't the issue. I don't want to make it appear I'm poisoning the well for someone who it seems WILL be returning, so I will simply say I think it is a large mistake. Foolish even. If this were a discussion at WP:AN, I'm confident the community as a whole would vote against it. I wish her luck at whatever she may do, but I don't think returning here is wise at all. Time will tell, I suppose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned by Dennis and others, the community doesn't know what has changed since the editor in question was banned, so it has no way to infer how likely a return will be successful. The extensive disruptive conduct found in the case documents a pattern of behaviour that reflects a fundamental disagreement with Wikipedia's current ethos. I appreciate that ethos may be flawed in numerous ways, but it is what it is, and editors who cannot contribute within its shortcomings (even if trying to overcome them) are bound to clash with others repeatedly. isaacl (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a little confused too on why the Community got notified half-way through, but the main decisions all seem reasonable. No complaints with the end result. I should note that I disagree with WTT that IBANs aren't "stigmatised sanctions". Perhaps 2-way IBANs shouldn't be...but they absolutely are. 1-way IBANS definitely are. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• GorillaWarfare, if you think you've pinged Sitush, I believe you're mistaken. There, now I've done it. But pings don't always work. Shouldn't he be notified that Lightbreather's one-way I-ban from him is up for review? He may have an opinion. Bishonen | tålk 12:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
• Indeed, if GorillaWarfare pinged me it did not work. I am flabbergasted by this decision when Lightbreather would appear still to be criticising individual editors etc off-wiki. We had extensive problems across many areas and with such apparent off-wiki criticism I really do not think this is a good idea at all, whether or not specific topic bans etc are in plae. I certainly do not want to see Lightbreather even on the same page as me - I still bear the scars of all the nonsense she perpetuated off wiki several years ago (people caste-warring on articles look up my username and then, among other things, sometimes come at me with insults that can only have been derived from the Lightbreather fracas as reported by certain outlets). Yes, I understand that she suffered some awful off-wiki abuse herself but this is not a "two wrongs make a right" game. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not going digging through years of old off-wiki stuff but if memory serves me right, LB was actually fuelling unwarranted accusations about me off-wiki, including in media interviews. And, as I have just said, it seems she may be fuelling stuff off-wiki regarding at least one other person as recently as this year. - Sitush (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sitush, do you have any evidence of this that you can send to ArbCom? If any of this is ongoing or has occurred within the past year or so, that would affect my thinking on this. I also recognize that people aren't as likely to report off-wiki issues with banned editors, so it's quite possible that there have been instances that ArbCom is not aware of. – bradv🍁 15:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ten+ years on and I still struggle with complex indent schemes Evidence of what? Of the recent criticism relating to A. N. Other, yes. Of the fact I still get hassled about it, less easy to do. If someone knows how to search interactions with me over the last, say, couple of months and do so for threads involving the word misogynist, there is definitely something in that period. And it didn't even relate to an article about a woman, it was just random and therefore obviously connected with the disruption reported years ago. But there is much more further back and I get emails about it which I simply delete. I think there are a few admins who would be prepared to vouch for me getting vile hassle via email due to my involvement in the India sphere but I'd be mad to keep it.

I do not routinely follow what Lightbreather does off-wiki - I've looked today due to this thread and the last time I saw anything was maybe six months ago, when something was linked from somewhere that ... you know how it works when you go clicking links.

I'm curious as to why LB's user page at meta was deleted on 1 July. Well, I know it was "user requested" because it says so ... but what was it that needed to be hidden? - Sitush (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to caste aspersions against someone who is currently banned? Is it even an aspersion to question the timing of this, given it is US election year and LB was vocal in all sorts of matters on Wikipedia that might be significant come November. I realise you are suggesting that the topic bans remain but the involvement was spread wide on-wiki and, as Dennis Brown suggests, this is not a leopard likely to change its spots. If I've overstepped by saying this then, obviously, remove it and accept my apologies. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ealgdyth let me know that this discussion was ongoing. We determined as a community that even the most productive editors don't deserve a home here if they are uncivil and their language or attitude may scare off other potential editors. The problem is that uncivil language is not the only measure of whether we are scaring off productive editors. Some editors - myself included - quit because of the immense headache of trying to follow the rules when someone else is being completely disruptive in a "nice way". It's having to repeatedly clean up messes being deliberately made by someone who can toe the line just enough to make their agenda slightly less obvious. I was once an extremely productive editor here. I now limit myself to creating the occasional article here and there in large part because the project does a poor job of preventing disruptive editors from sucking all of the oxygen out of the room. Lightbreather was one of those disruptive editors. During her time on this project, her ratio of productive to disruptive conduct was extremely low. She also targeted other editors on other sites (which should, IMO, be grounds for a permanent ban). She was given many chances to change and chose to double down. If Lightbreather has been able to be productive on other wikis, that's great - let her stay there. Why would we run the risk that she will drive off other editors again? Not necessarily people she's attacked, but people who see the mess on the pages she touches and decide they don't want to get involved? If we allow her back, who is going to monitor her behavior here? How many chances will she get? If things degenerate, how much of a timesuck will she be allowed to be? How many other editors will decide this place isn't worth it because we are protecting the disruptive over those who want to put their heads down and get to work? Karanacs (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]