Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

I have just closed the tomat-long discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lightbreather and gun control editing, where there is no consensus for any action but a widespread sentiment that the community hasn't been able to adequately resolve the issues. Many editors think that this is the sort of complex multi-party dispute that would benefit from a full case. (Those editors might want to suggest possible parties in addition to or instead of the ones I've listed above.) Another option would be to resolve this request by motion, for instance by reïnstating some of Lightbreather's restrictions (which were rescinded in November 2025) and/or restoring the contentious topic designation for gun control (which was rescinded in February 2026). I am wearing my closer hat here and don't have a firm opinion at this point on what the best way forward is.

Statement by Lightbreather

Lightbreather's statement contains 556 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

I don't want to endure another ArbCom. I also do not believe I deserve another topic ban. I have explained why I started editing in this one area of gun subjects.[1][2] (scroll down) I have edited in good faith. I have apologized for sparring with Anastrophe.[3] I do NOT plan on editing in this area once the sockpuppet's bad-faith edits are mitigated. (It is too stressful.)

I am going to concentrate here on Springee. Springee mostly remains civil, but he engages in gaming. Examples: Stonewalling; negotiating in bad faith [4][5]; repeatedly pooh-poohing reliable sources[6][7]; WP:BLUDGEONING -- not just by sheer volume of comments,[8] but by wanting more and more sources,[9][10] and/or saying he needs to review/survey the given sources.[11][12].

Arguing UNDUE/WEIGHT

05/20/26 TP "Magazine"[13]
06/02/26 TP "Magazine"[14]
06/19/26 TP "Republican Party"[15]
06/26/26 ES "Republican Party"[16]
07/07/26 TP "Republican Party"[17]

Claiming No Consensus

11/23/25 TP "Republican Party"[18]
05/22/26 ES "Magazine"[19] (undid all, not just individual items he objected to)
05/22/26 TP "Magazine"[20] (saying he objected to individual items)
07/06/26 ES "Republican Party"[21]
07/07/26 ES "Republican Party"[22]

Requiring Clear/Precise/Specific Definitions

10/28/25 TP "Republican Party"[23]
05/20/26 TP "Magazine"[24] (also, pickup beds and hot dogs?)
05/30/26 ES "Gun show loophole"[25]
05/31/26 TP GSL[26]
07/03/26 TP "Magazine" [27] (more unrelated comparisons)

Suggesting Keyword Search Results/Sources Are Bad Somehow

05/23/26 TP "Magazine"[28]
06/27/26 TP "Republican Party"[29]
07/04/26 TP "Magazine"[30]
07/07/26 TP "Republican Party"[31]

Commenting on/at Other Editors

11/25/25 At Temp Account[32]
05/22/26 At Lightbreather WP:IDHT [33]
06/09/26 At OwenX[34] (supervote accusation; backpedaled after)
06/27/26 At TA again[35]
07/09/26 At LB WP:RGW [36]

Lightbreather (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If they are willing to participate -- and I understand if they aren't -- I think @Darknipples, Dlthewave, and K.e.coffman: and others may be able to support my claims and/or add more diffs.

I would also like to point out the obvious: Anastrophe's statement has zero diffs. Lightbreather (talk) 23:10, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot. When I created an RfC 07/02/26, I notified two lists to get a wider group.[37] Less than 24 hours later, Springee notified WP:GUNS [38] and WP:MIL [39] -- but didn't mention it at the RfC. That seems a little like WP:CANVASSING. Lightbreather (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To K.e.coffman's experience: As of today, AR-15-style rifle[40] and National Rifle Association[41] are Springee's third and fourth most-edited[42] TPs. (Republican Party,[43] which I was pinged to, is his second most edited TP.) Lightbreather (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I see there has already been one vote supporting another arbcom. If this does go forward, I agree with others here who have asked to add Qwirkle and Hemmers. I would also suggest User:AadamentAardvark, who has been editing less than six months and whose top edits are at Talk:Magazine_firearms[44] and WP:ANI[45]. He accused me of canvassing more than once, but never gave an actual diff.

@CaptainEek: You wrote that this would be my third arbcom, but I only remember one other. Which was the second, please? Lightbreather (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Stikkyy: WP:APPNOTE says: "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it."

Also: "It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users."

Also, biased or partisan notifications are inappropriate. Springee knows eitors in the projects notified -- especially WP:GUNS -- are predominately progun. Lightbreather (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anastrophe

Anastrophe's statement contains 456 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Much of this is already part of the record; however I think the sequence matters more than any single item.

1. The Subject - Lightbreather - was site banned in 2015 for an abundance of egregious violations; this editor had no knowledge of the site ban proceedings, and thus did not participate in the discussions.
2. Subject appealed site ban seven years later, tendering "Dear Community"[46], which included: "One question is how I'm going to avoid the behaviors that resulted in being banned. [...] FIRST, 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."
3. This editor did learn of unban appeal, and participated in the community discussion in favor of revoking the ban, in part due to 'Dear community' as above.
4. Subject's site ban was rescinded, but with six strong constraints, including a topic ban on gun-related articles.
5. Subject contributed productively and without conflict for several years.
6. Subject appealed for removal of the six constraints, again tendering "Dear community", and importantly, making this statement: "In a nutshell, I would like to put the past - 10 years past - behind me and further prove myself. I promise I will not let the community down." This editor "voted" in favor of recission on all but one, the topic ban; that constraint was rescinded however.
7. Subject returned to editing in the topic subject was formerly banned from, five months later.
8. Subject resumed behaviors that had resulted in the topic ban, contrary to their prior promises to ARBCOM and the community.

I acknowledge my own bad behaviors and lapses of judgement, and my contributions to the conflicts that arose both in talk-space and at ANI. I've been uncivil, aggressively blunt, and countering unpleasantness with the same level of energy, rather than de-escalating. But my feelings and behaviors aren't explicitly at issue here, notwithstanding sanctions that may fall on me in consequence.

What should be patent from the above: Subject broke multiple promises to ARBCOM and the community, upon which loosening of constraints by ARBCOM was predicated.

Subject's statement in "Dear Community" closed with this:

"Finally, I acknowledge some think I am a leopard that will never change its spots. I doubt that I can say anything to change their minds. Rather I would reiterate that I am a human being who has learned from past mistakes and given the chance I believe you will see that is true."

ARBCOM and the community gave Subject that chance.

The former topic ban should be reinstated. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:29, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

If the objective here is to come up with a better way to establish weight for inclusion/exclusion in articles and a better way to decide if a source is reliable for specific claims, I think that would helpful for the topic area and might provide a template for other contentious topic areas. If the objective is to figure out who needs to be sanctioned, I don’t think that gets to the root issue.

Dlthewave mentioned their Signpost article. We co-authored that article providing opposing views. That article mentions Dlthewave's Feb 2018 RfC that, as I noted at the time, was a missed opportunity. The RfC asked if gun articles should contain information about mass shootings and was closed as evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, the RfC didn’t ask or provide guidance on how should we decide when something has weight in context of the Wiki article subject. I discussed that very issue in the OpEd and noted that WEIGHT says we should treat aspects of a topic in proportion "to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." In most, but not all, cases articles about the firearm don’t mention use in a particular crime. Dlthewave mentioned D.C sniper attacks and the Chevrolet Caprice example. It’s a great example because it parallels the facts in many of the gun – crime inclusion discussions.

Dlthewave is also right about focusing on sources when looking at the high-capacity magazine content. It’s clear we don’t have agreement on which sources are due but the focus has been on establishing weight based on sourcing. HCM in context of public policy, regulations and capacity limits – easy to find good sources, absolutely DUE. HCM as a stand-alone technical topic? Much harder to find good sources. Also, failure to include shouldn’t doesn’t mean the process isn’t working. In late 2018 a rifle related RfC was closed as consensus to exclude in part because sources about the rifle didn’t mention the crime. [47]

I do have nits to pick with some of the claims/references made by some editors below but I think Newslinger really gets it right, the discussions are more productive and less acrimonious than the ANI suggested.

Oppose if the intent is simply find fault with editors. Support if the objective is to help the whole community come up with more structure to evaluate sources and establish weight in a contentious topic area.

Statement by CoffeeCrumbs

I have to agree that the community is having trouble resolving the issue one way or the other. Given the difficulties of the topic area, and the long histories of the people involved, I think it would be an extreme challenge to achieve even a rough consensus on the fundamental issues.

I am not a neutral third party, in that I expressed that I think a topic ban for Lightbreather and a logged-warning for the others would resolve the issue, but I do think there's real value in an ArbCom investigation of everyone involved, even if it wouldn't have been my first choice at the start. There have been various allegations of off-site canvassing (on both sides of the issue), and while I don't agree with their interpretation of the history, credible editors have suggested that there's tag teaming in this topic to prevent changes. An ArbCom case could resolve this more cleanly now that it's looking like the community can't. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies to our favorite Grump, this isn't the area to resolve questions about the wisdom of gun control or to determine whether English Wikipedia's articles on the topic are too American-centric. We're here about the conduct of the editors discussing these issues, and the more liberalized notion of gun rights in America than other Western countries is neither here nor there. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Zacherystaylor, it's out of ArbCom's jurisdiction to decide whether the content is too slanted one way or the other on gun control, only whether conduct has been inappropriate, so if you're looking for a determination there, I don't think you're going to get one. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jessintime, I'm not sure your example quite illustrates your point. Yes, that's a tedious conversation, but it's generally a reasonably courteous one with two people discussing whether the lead should acknowledge that a term is than a precise legal category or whether the focus should be on the underlying information, whether or not it bounds a category. Reasonable people can disagree without it being a problem. The worst part of that discussion is Lightbreather jumping in to make it personal and snipe at Springee in the third comment. Lightbreather's contributions are easily the worst part of that discussion. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Star Mississippi

Lower case involved here by virtue of Talk:Magazine_(firearms)/Archives/2026/June and closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-capacity magazine ban. I did not participate in the just-closed ANI as I wasn't sure what the best course of action was. It's clear that something needs to be done since the interested parties appear to be at a place where they cannot reach a conclusion due to-in part-intractable behavior and these discussions have gone on far too long and consumed too much user energy without any resolution. I'm still not super familiar with ArbComm procedures so please let me know if anything further is needed. Star Mississippi 14:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: I think/hope that some leeway will be given to Springee when they return to editing since this appears to be the opposite of a typical ANI flu, they were told they shouldn't participate and didn't. There's no indication they even saw Lb's followup to SFR. Star Mississippi 15:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jéské Couriano

I'm thinking the easiest way forward here would be to reinstate Lightbreather's topic-ban. I doubt that reinstating the GC CTOP would do much good (it was rescinded as mostly redundant with AP2 if memory serves). What concerns me more is Springee's conduct in this discussion - or more accurately, the lack thereof. Thanks to that remedy and this rather unfortunate clarification that seems to be at odds with WP:BANEX I'm a bit concerned that Springee is going to end up essentially handcuffed on the cart to the headsman at Helgen sooner rather than later due to the remedy from TGH. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 15:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I'm working under the assumption that they took your clarification at face value, the thread started going into a direction where they would need to violate said clarification to defend themselves, and they responded by lying low until things blew over. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 05:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndyTheGrump

It seems to me quite obvious that beyond the immediate behavioural issues (which involve multiple contributors, and not just Lightbreather, and I'm unconvinced she is the worst offender), the systemic bias that I have noted in previous gun-control-related ArbCom threads is at the root of much of the problems this topic has attracted right from the start. This bias is evident in the thoroughly distorted manner in which what ought to be a global topic is overwhelmingly dominated by the narrow heavily politicised discourse of the US gun control debate. This is grossly unencyclopaediatic, and contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The United States is very much the outlier in terms of firearms legislation, and likewise an outlier in regard to the extent that this is seen as a party-political matter, and treating it as the central focus of content, with the remainder of the world tacked on almost as an afterthought, is frankly obnoxious. I'd have to suggest that if Wikipedia can't write about this topic without making the whole process look like debate in a bar in Kalamazoo, maybe it would be in the best interests of our readers not to write about it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

Guy Macon's statement contains 442 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

I see below that some arbs are asking for evidence that this is not a one-editor problem, and that's fair. I would also ask anyone who thinks that other editors are a problem to post diffs establishing that claim.

I do not, however agree with the assumption that arbcom should not address one-editor problems in general. Assuming that this really is a one-editor problem (I am waiting on diffs that confirm or refute that) if this isn't a textbook example of a one-editor problem that ANI is unable to resolve I don't know what is.

Arbs, please consider the possibility that, even if none of the other participants in the dispute did anything that should be sanctioned, they most certainly did behave in such a way as to make it effectively impossible to resolve this issue at ANI and that this alone justifies the more structured approach of arbcom.

An alternative approach might involve sending this back to ANI with restrictions on word count and number of comments, and mandating that all discussion should occur in a separate section from !votes. Mandating the question to be asked at ANI would also be a huge help. It could very well be that with a bit of structure ANI could handle this without bothering the arbs.

If anyone has a list of diffs that they feel they are unable to post here, they can email them to me. I will evaluate them, and if I agree that they are relevant and that I can defend posting them, I will post them under my name -- a diff should stand by itself and not by whoever searched for it and found it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the assumption. If we don't see need for a case focused on multiple editors, we would most likely just vote here on whether to restore the topic ban (or other remedies) that we imposed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather § Remedies and rescinded 8 months ago. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 16:58, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion that would not be an optimal decision even if you don't see need for a case focused on multiple editors. I have been struggling to compose a good argument as to why I think this but the response at Statement by MarkBernstein explains it better than I could. As that comment says, "We need a new approach, not another ban or two leading to new trips to AN and AN/I, more offense and defense, and a return here." Or, as I would put it, more rounds of Whac-A-Mole. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a formal request at User talk:CaptainEek for CaptainEek to recuse. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steve Quinn

Steve Quinn's statement contains 566 words and is within 10% of the 550-word limit.

Extension granted to 550 words. Daniel (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to participate in ARBCOM at the moment due to time constraints. However, I am hoping my input throughout the process will be helpful. What is the deadline for these opening remarks because I have more to say? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

48 hours after the request was filed and 24 hours after there is net-4 to accept, when it's clear there won't be net-4 to accept, or however long a motion takes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It could be that ARBCOM does not need to take this case. Given the merits of each ivote and related discussions in the ANI I believe the correct assessment of no consensus on a reinstalment of the ban was achieved. For example, the OP, Thebiguglyalien, provided this diff [48] which seems to point to a PA [49] by Lightbreather on TALK:Gun show loophole. First, it seems the PA was removed, if you read that discussion [[50], so this is moot.

Second, it appears User: Springee and Lightbreather have a history based Lightbreather saying (to Springee) "...If you want, I can provide plenty of diffs of you disputing the definability of 'gun show loophole', among other widely used common names.." [51]. Then she says, " If it were the first time you made the argument, I would agree. But you've made the same argument many times and that seems rather tendentious, as in 'repeated attempts to insert or delete content in the face of the objections of several other editors, or behavior that tends to frustrate proper editorial processes and discussions' ". [ [52] Notice that Lightbreather provided two quotes (based on prior decisions somewhere?).

Also, if you read the relevant thread on TALK:Gun show loophole, you will see that Springee's view is quite different from the others' in the conversation. It doesn't take long to read through [53]. All this amounts to run of the mill editing behaviors on related gun control articles, where there is plenty of editor disagreement. This situation exemplifies the the input, during the ANI, from the other editors advocating for the ban. But I only have 500 words. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am uninvolved, except for ANI and ,now, one RSN thread. Contrary to CC's comments above, I think Andy the Grump's and Zacherystaylor's comments are highly relevant and germane. Also, evidence seems to show that it is doubtful that Lightbreather is solely responsible for any disagreements and arbiters should not be quick to reinstating the ban Steve Quinn (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I am in total agreement with EaglesFan37. They seem to have accurately and concisely described the editing behaviors that occur across the related gun control articles. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: can you please clarify your claim that Lightbreather claimed a patent is RS? Although that is the subsection title, in the actual thread she says it is WP:PRIMARY [54]. So, I think it is best to employ AGF and say there was confusion in the heat of the moment of the discussion. This is because it could be argued that a self description of the patent is primary as long as the participants in the discussion agree (in this instance). And in this case there seemed to be no agreement. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainEek, sorry, no clarification needed. I am instead making this my assertion. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zacherystaylor

As I already indicated I oppose a ban, and think this would set a bad precedent where a small majority could ban someone for a disagreement, especially since from what I've seen she hasn't made any clear violations to merit this. I haven't sorted out all the disagreements, since there are so many; but I've known for a while that there's a strong 2nd Amendment advocate group, coordinating or not, trying to ban much if any discussion of Gun Control, especially after mass shootings. It appears that, intentionally or not, they might be trying to ban people with opposing views, which would be a bad precedent. I stated in the previous discussion that An article from eight years ago Pro-gun Wikipedia users spark fierce editing war shows this has been a pattern of behavior for a long time. And there was another incident seventeen years ago where gun control opponents opposed views from one of the most credible academics on preventing violence even though most of his research focused on other causes of violence. A closer look at the gun control issue to make sure 2nd Amendment advocates aren't dominating the issue may be more important than this one ban. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is the appropriate place to debate some of the related contested edits or a separate request is better if they can't be resolved, but I restored some content here along with two minor edits that followed and it's being discussed here. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EaglesFan37

I'm a neutral party in this dispute (never have even edited gun/gun-control related topics) and only commented at the ANI case that it should be referred to ARBCOM.

I read through recent discussions at Talk:High-capacity magazine Talk:Magazine (firearms), Talk:Drum magazine, Talk:Gun show loophole, Talk:High-capacity magazine ban.

It appears that a a decent amount of the current conflict stems from Lightbreather reverting edits made by Iljhgtn, who is now blocked for being a sock puppet of PapaTakaro. These reverts are opposed by Springee, which leads to repeated protracted talk page back-and-forths between the two. Then, essentially the same group of users tend to jump in and things continue to devolve further into incivility and personal attacks. Eventually, another editor or two will be able to briefly restore order, until things then devolve in another discussion on the same page.

In particular, Qwirkle appears to frequently be either toeing the line, or outright crossing it, in regards to incivility: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]

I would recommend adding Qwirkle to the case as well. EaglesFan37 (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall If the topic area is a walled garden where neutrality can't get in, that's arguably a matter for ARBCOM in itself since then there is WP:STONEWALLING and WP:POVPUSH happening from a group of editors across a topic area.

There also seems to be an assumption among many here that only Lightbreather would be sanctioned if an ARBCOM case was accepted, which I doubt would be the case. As shown in the diffs in my prior comment, Qwirkle frequently engages in conduct that could veer into personal attacks. In the talk pages, Springee seems to be engaging in WP:TE and has over 100 comments in some of the talk page discussions in the past few months (a volume only rivaled by Lightbreather). I'm not as familiar with Anastrophe, but they have acknowledge that their talk page etiquette has not been stellar in these disputes. There's enough parties (or potential parties involved) for it to be worth ARBCOM taking this case. EaglesFan37 (talk) 03:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek There is also possible incivility/personal attacks from Hemmers: [64], [65] ,[66].

There also were repeated canvassing/socking allegations made all-around at the recent ANI, and if there is any private evidence of that, ARBCOM would be the place for it. EaglesFan37 (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ Could you please add Qwirkle as a party? EaglesFan37 (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the committee accepts a case we'll decide on the party list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Noted. EaglesFan37 (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

Lightbreather uses sources appropriately. Lightbreather does not remove sources inappropriately. Lightbreather has a point of view diametrically opposed to the POV being pushed by gun advocates and is thus deeply resented. Lightbreather has been sanctioned before and thus represents an "easy" target to be attacked and bullied. A great deal of verbiage has already been wasted in this attempt at a purge. No consensus at ANI resulted. Now the closing admnistrator is rushing over here for another round... Reject this case request. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

The statements by Arbs along the lines of "we'll just ban Lightbreather again, they're obviously the problem" are ... (shakes head). If you can't produce an actual reason to reinstate the topic ban, then you should reject the case. This isn't rocket science. Black Kite (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stikkyy

I haven't received the history lesson required to make sense of the context behind the dispute, but the rate at which the ANI devolved into a generic ballot was unfortunate, albeit given the length, probably unavoidable. I don't think that booting the issue back to the noticeboards could reverse this trend, regardless of the structure that it takes. Stikkyy (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GUNS and WP:MILHIST are the two WikiProjects listed in the banner shell at the top of [67], I wouldn't consider notifying those projects canvassing. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Article_alerts (automated) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts#RfC. Stikkyy (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, here are the two notifications: [68] (MILHIST) and [69] (GUNS). Stikkyy (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

Lightbreater's behavior has certainly been problematic. What's really needed is a milder restriction than a topic ban. The ANI only proposed a more severe restriction (a topic ban) and so was not fully played out. Suggest a reopened ANI to discuss a milder restriction. An Arbcom case is not called for at this point. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by S Marshall

Lightbreather's conduct arises from trying to bring neutrality to a walled garden. If you want to end the disruption as quickly and quietly as possible, you could tban Lightbreather; that leads to peace and quiet and the sleepy restoration of the old, longstanding POV.

If you want content that's actually NPOV according to our core content policies, then you need to not tban Lightbreather, because her knowledge and passion will be so helpful to the arduous cleanup project we'll need.

And that means Arbcom is the wrong venue for this problem. We don't need the Highest Court of Conduct. We need the Highest Court of Content that Wikipedia doesn't have.

I hope the committee doesn't take this case. You're a hammer and this isn't a nail.—S Marshall T/C 23:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

EaglesFan37, it isn't a nail but it also isn't a rivet. I've got no evidence or diffs to show the kind of POV pushing that would interest Arbcom. This is boring, ordinary POV pushing that happens when a group of articles are written by a self-selected group of American gun enthusiasts. They have shared, unchallenged assumptions and a genuine belief that their content is neutral, even when to my eye it's comically skewed. This is a problem that the community has made no effort to fix and, outside long discussions about Lightbreather's conduct, little effort to even discuss. The resolution will involve content RFCs, not sanctions.—S Marshall T/C 08:13, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Katzrockso

I see no reason for the committee to accept this case request, certainly not framed in this particular manner and with this specific scope.
Moreover, I am appalled at ArbCom's suggestion that the remedy here is to reimpose Lightbreather's topic ban. It's almost surreal that the ANI thread got as far as it did. Numerous evidence-free claims made about Lightbreather and gobbled up by unsuspecting editors, and seemingly now ArbCom members. If all it takes to get an minority voice banned in a topic area characterized by mendacious representation of sources is a few editors groundlessly claiming disruptive conduct has occurred, then ArbCom should sanction every editor on this page. I hope ArbCom does not confuse disagreement with disruption or conflict with personal attacks.
Anyone supporting a sanction on Lightbreather should be able to show relevant diffs. In the ANI discussion, the only relevant diffs showed conduct outside of the gun control topic area (relevant to Talk:Republican Party (United States)), Lightbreather's past statements during her appeal of her site ban and the fact that there have been more talk page discussions than in the past on gun-related pages. As far as I'm aware, none of those are relevant to whether a gun control topic ban should be reimposed.Katzrockso (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

I'm very much with S Marshall and Black Kite. ArbCom should either accept and review the conduct of all involved editors or reject outright. Reinstating Lightbreather's topic ban, by itself, just to bring peace to a walled garden, is not the answer. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GhostOfDanGurney

If I'm understanding this correctly, a user is reverting edits by a factionalized sock (in line with P&Gs) and because this specific garden is so walled, they have been brought to ANI and now ArbCom for it? If I am, those certainly aren't good optics. Reject this, please. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 04:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If @CaptainEek: finds it appropriate to search for diffs when no one else is, perhaps they should recuse and/or become a party here. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 15:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

if it wasn't obvious already, I share the concerns of Hammersoft and Airshipjungleman and maintain that* CaptainEek should recuse here. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 14:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ContentEditman

Originally this was brought against Lightbreather. But after reading I think Boomerang applies against those pushing this. It seems some have even posted on outside forums to try and gang up on Lightbreather to get them banned? You can see such comment here... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1365389301 So there is a lot more going on with this from the other editors and this topic as well. I'm guessing this has been going on for a while and is not getting better. ContentEditman (talk) 11:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newslinger

Much of the opposition in the ANI discussion is in response to Lightbreather being the only editor for whom restrictions were proposed. While reading the discussion, I noticed the battleground conduct displayed in discussions involving Anastrophe: "My loathing is getting the best of me" ([70]), invoking Lightbreather's 2022 site ban appeal in ~~conduct~~ content disputes from this year ([71] [72]), and multiple comments indicating that a two-way interaction ban between Lightbreather and Anastrophe would be helpful ([73] [74] [75]).

My first impression was that Anastrophe's and other editors' conduct hadn't been subject to the same level of scrutiny due to the initial ANI comment only assigning blame to Lightbreather, and I suggested that the discussion be referred to ArbCom as a case request, which has now been done. Since then, I've examined the top-edited talk pages by Lightbreather and Anastrophe and found less evidence of recent misconduct in the topic area than I'd been expecting based on the divisiveness of the ANI discussion. With apologies to the editors who cited my ANI comment in the discussion, I'm not sure if a full case is needed here. EaglesFan37's findings appear valid but can probably be also be addressed by motion, if needed. — Newslinger talk 17:09, 25 July 2026 (UTC); corrected word 04:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by wbm1058

@CaptainEek: re: trying to claim that patents are RS (they clearly aren't) – per WP:RSPRIMARY, primary sources can be both reliable and useful in certain situations. They generally are reliable, when not intentionally spreading mis- or dis-information. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've not followed all the gun article debates, but I have kept an eye on one particular page, Magazine (firearms), which many of LB's diffs also point to. This RfC (uh, "straw poll") closed as accept the proposed draft introduced by Lightbreather on 30 May 2026, but Springee objected to that close, and a lengthy discussion ensued with the poll's administrative closer. Still unsatisfied after that, filed a close review which has since auto-archived without being formally closed. Administrators with the time to read and close these lengthy debates are in short supply. I might yet take a stab at it, but this sort of thing is a bit out of my wheelhouse. Maybe, before taking this case, someone could close it? In sports leagues, coaches only get so many challenges, and when they've used them all up, it's sorry, out of luck. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein

The fundamental problem is not a question of conduct. The problem is that the Wiki Way has no good answer for topics, like Gun Control, in which large populations hold views that cannot be reconciled.

It is sometimes possible on esoteric topics to gain peace without honor by driving off one side or the other. The Gamergate case tried that. It did not work for (checks notes) "ethics in games journalism" or (check other notes) "not harassing women in computing"; it’s certain to fail in Gun Control, just as it is currently failing in PIA.

There exist plenty of people who strongly favor gun control. There exist plenty who strongly oppose gun control. No acceptable neutral ground may exist. This leads Wikipedia to treat long-term content disputes as an exercise in editor attrition, as opposing editors hope to ban opponents and to seize control of the page before replacements arrive. That is no longer a realistic ambition for topics that receive considerable attention, but it doesn’t stop people from trying. The eagerness of Arbs to embrace the hope that just one more topic ban will bring peace and quiet is vain.

It is easy to find diffs that show a specific miscreant was uncivil. It is hard to show diffs that show a good-deed-doer showed sense and patience in the face of provocation. It is impossible to show diffs where an editor silently acquiesced to changes that they believed harmful to the project and the public.

We need a new approach, not another ban or two leading to new trips to AN and AN/I, more offense and defense, and a return here. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jessintime

For those looking for evidence of examples not involving LB, here’s Springee engaging in a tedious talk page discussion with another editor. See Talk:Gun_show_loophole#Lead_changes. (As a disclaimer, LB was minimally involved in the discussion but most of the back and forth was with another.) If we were to broaden the scope beyond gun control I could point to numerous examples in other politically touchy subjects. Jessintime (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman

I edited the area in question in 2018, after the Parkland high school shooting. The articles I edited were AR-15–style rifle (then called Modern sporting rifle); National Rifle Association; and various gun manufacturer pages. The challenges in the topic area were well described by this article from The Verge: "How gun buffs took over Wikipedia’s AR-15 page: After Parkland, gun control information was strangely hard to find" (source).

I did not interact with LightBreather, because they were banned at the time, but I was generally familiar with the story, such as the infamous incident of person who Cannot Understand Normal Thought (I paraphrase). I did interact with Springee and other editors affiliated with WP:GUNS project and related editors. The experience was not pleasant. This can be seen in this AE filing: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive233#Thewolfchild. Among other things, an editor attempted to recruit WP:GUNS project to determine "what, if any, further actions or sanctions are required" & "This should be examined, this should all be examined, and thoroughly." [76].

The editor in question was sanctioned for "personalizing disputes, making personal attacks, ridiculing or disparaging other editors, impeding the formation of consensus, and canvassing". That pretty much summed up my experience with the project as an 'outsider', infringing on the protected turf. Given my quick glance at the topic area now, it may still be going on, especially the part about impeding the formation of consensus.

I believe it would be a mistake to single out LightBreather for sanctions as they are one of the few editors attempting to maintain neutrality in the topic area. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:43, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by REAL_MOUSE_IRL

Re CaptainEek Unless I'm missing something, the chief reason it became spicy is LB.

The spurt of activity at Gun show loophole after Iljhgtn was blocked shows it was getting spicy quick before LB touched the topic. [77] Granted this specific comment is from Riposte who is now CBAN'd, I don't think the surrounding conversation is much better. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

I was active in this topic area back in 2018 when wrote about my experience in the Signpost. Back then it was very common for editors with an anti-gun-control veiwpoint to derail discussions with questions like "We don't mention the D.C. sniper attacks in the Chevrolet Caprice article, so why would we mention the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in the AR-15–style rifle article?" (Answer: Because per WP:DUE we follow what reliable sources say, and reliable sources frequently discuss the connection between one but not the other.) Sadly it seems that not much has changed since then, as I see a similar trend in recent discussions: At "High-capacity_magazine"_material_should_be_merged_into_this_article the discussion should have focused on how reliable sources define and discuss high-capacity magazines, but instead the conversation is sidetracked by editors linking gun manufacturer marketing material and making bizarre comparisons to high-capacity washing machines, extended-range electric vehicles and long-bed pickup trucks which have nothing to do with the topic. Using these analogies to impede the formation of consensus instead of focusing on the sources is a behavioral issue that needs to be addressed, since it is still happening 8 years later.

You'll notice that I linked a discussion instead of providing diffs. Unfortunately if we're going to see any change in this area, admins and arbs are going to have to read through some very long and tedious discussions to see the big picture of what is happening. Do not be misled by editors who link a single diff where someone made on ostensibly uncivil remark while neglecting to mention the many paragraphs of "civil POV pushing" which came before it. –dlthewave ☎ 17:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Qwirkle

First, let me express my amazement that someone can be mentioned here, repeatedly, without being given notice.

Essentially we have a choice between two sub-optimal alternatives, the products of what I will call Team Springee and Team Lightbreather.

One will create a reasonably accurate article that neglects or underplays one part-and a minor part; the article would be almost identical if private use of detachable magazines was eliminated.

The other will create a coatrack -no, a series of coatracks- based on tendentious, and rather sloppy research.

Which would you chose? Which is better for an encyclopedia? Qwirkle (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hammersoft

The job of the committee at this point isn't to determine whether any party to the case is in the wrong. The job here is to determine if there's sufficient reason to start a case, propose a motion, or insufficient reason to start a case. CaptainEek, you in particular are already calling out LB's guilt in this, and even presenting evidence to support it. To be blunt, shame on you. Stop deciding this case before it's even opened. Furthermore, just because there's smoke doesn't automatically mean that LB is the source of the fire. I have no opinion on LB's behavior, but to conclude guilt now is categorically wrong. At least try to have some appearance of impartiality, even if you don't believe it. Wow. Just...wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: I share the concerns voiced by GhostOfDanGurney, Black Kite, Ritchie333, and AirshipJungleman29. You don't need to be providing a reason for anything at this stage. Again, at this stage your only job here is to determine if there's sufficient reason to start a case, propose a motion, or insufficient reason to start a case. For you to go about hunting for evidence to support your position rather strongly shows that you have a decided bias in this case. With due respect, you are way out of line. In presenting evidence (nevermind showing an obvious bias), you crossed a line per WP:RECUSAL and became involved in the dispute. It's not your job to present evidence. Your predisposition on this case makes it impossible for you to continue as an arbitrator on this case. I am formally asking you to recuse. Please recuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Per the instructions at WP:RECUSAL, I have made a formal request at User talk:CaptainEek for CaptainEek to recuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: 2 of the 4 diffs CaptainEek noted were not in the WP:AN/I thread. So yes, it appears some original work was done to reach a conclusion about LB's guilt (and that's the point). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Correct, which means CaptainEek was digging through a lot of materials to generate those diffs. You're essentially proving my point. This is out of line, and when combined with their obvious predisposition to conclude guilt, shows a rather dramatic need to recuse. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Lightbreather)

I think that there is agreement that ArbCom should take some action. I see a question about whether ArbCom should reinstate the previous topic-ban by motion. It is my opinion that, whenever there is an apparent case that a user should be sanction, ArbCom should open an evidentiary case to determine whether there are other editors who are partly at fault, such as by baiting the editor in question.

I am puzzled by the statement by User:S Marshall that Lightbreather's conduct arises from trying to bring neutrality to a walled garden. Maybe I have missed something, but I don't see where a walled garden has been mentioned. Has the walled garden been written by gun enthusiasts from the United States? If there is a walled garden of articles, is it being gatekept by a tag team.

I see evidence to warrant opening a case on Lightbreather and others, with its scope to include baiting, improper coordination, and other misconduct by gun enthusiasts. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

CaptainEek appears to be firmly predisposed against the case subject; I suggest they recuse. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

I don't go anywhere near gun control articles, so I'm looking at this as an outsider. I agree with Carrite; throwing Lightbreather under a bus might be the easiest option, but not necessarily the best one.

I also agree with Hammersoft that CaptainEek seems far too keen to want to throw Lightbreather under a bus, and needs to step back a bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:52, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent more time looking into some of the disputes, and one that really jumps out at me is Springee's berating and needling of OwenX at Talk:Magazine (firearms) simply because Owen closed an RfC in a way that Springee didn't like, culminating in fraying of patience. If the normally cool, calm and collected Owen is getting fed up, it's small wonder that any other editor would do the same. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Gun control: Clerk notes

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

@Steve Quinn: The period for preliminary statements is whatever duration is required for four net votes or an absolute majority of currently-active arbitrators. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 17:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <5/0/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Unless folks can clearly point to other editors who are being a problem, and not just because they were interacting with Lightbreather, it appears that the root of the issue is Lightbreather. Reinstating her gun control topic ban appears to be the easiest solution, and firmly in our wheelhouse. That can be resolved by motion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:28, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perusing the ANI and the various threads and diffs, here's what stood out to me: LB snipes at Springee, LB and anastrophe swat at each other, LB and anastrophe swat at each other more, LB snipes at Springee by trying to claim that patents are RS (they clearly aren't), More anastrophe/LB, Qwirkle snipes at LB, Qwirkle snipes at LB more. The common thread...is LB. Now, could I see anastrophe walking away with an iban, and qwirkle with a civility warning? Maybe. And would we likely uncover more evidence if we held a full case? Sure. So I lean more towards opening a case than I had at first glance. But lets be honest, if LB becomes the subject of her ~~third~~ second ArbCase (and given that she was previously banned), she's probably not gonna walk away from it. Thus my solution to mercifully restore her tban by motion. As to the topic area generally, we revoked the gun control CT, and its not like the topic has melted down since. Unless I'm missing something, the chief reason it became spicy is LB. I reject that the Committee somehow has to let a disruptive editor run around in a topic area just because it has a POV that is different than hers and there aren't many editors with her POV in the topic. At any rate, the topic remains generally covered by the AMPOL CT. So bottom line, something should be done here, but I'm still not seeing that a case is the best solution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of folks have brought up the patent conversation. A patent is a primary source. Primary sources can be reliable, but Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately ... they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. .... secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. ... All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. LB opened a thread titled "Suddenly patents are not RS?" She then claimed she was using a patent in an RSPRIMARY compliant manner. I disagree. She was using a patent to provide analysis, i.e., to support her personal crusade to describe things as "high capacity." A patent is not a good indicator of DUEWEIGHT. But the issue in that thread is just as much about LB's approach as it is her defense of the patent. She was brusque, called out Springee (contrary to focus on content, not the contributor), and unwilling to consider she might be wrong. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hammersoft, I included those diffs because others suggested I was not providing an actual reason to restore LB's topic ban. I have no intention to presuppose anyone's guilt. I was simply trying to come up with a resolution short of a case, and folks wanted me to expound. Unfortunately, that effort appears to be failing, so we'll likely see what a full case brings. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept This issue belies a simple answer, and it appears a full case is necessary. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pondering, though I want to hear from the community members who say that the problem is not centered on Lightbreather, preferably with a sample of diffs. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 10:35, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hearing the names Anastrophe, Qwirkle, Lightbreather, and Springee. I'm certainly open to examining all of their conduct in the context of a case, but I'm not willing to impose restrictions by motion. There were many lessons that ArbCom should've learned from the Iskandar323 saga at the beginning of the year. One is the wisdom in WP:ARBPOL limiting resolv[ing] the dispute by motion to instances [w]here the facts of a matter are substantially undisputed. That's not true here. (I think topic banning Lightbreather would be permitted by the letter of ARBPOL because ArbCom may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time—including by rescinding the rescission of the topic ban. However, I don't think it meets the spirit of the rules; more importantly, I don't think doing so would be wise.) Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still pondering. My sticking point is that the other putative parties have not (as far as I can tell) been the subject of prior dispute resolution. If the community wants the first bite at the apple, they should be given that opportunity. I think the quip "whether you think you can, or you think you cannot—you're correct" applies here. Do editors have thoughts on this? Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 12:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to clarify this statement. What I mean is that:
If community members believe the broader conduct dispute can be resolved with e.g. a noticeboard thread or content discussions, I support the community trying these instead of a case.

If not, I support taking a case now. Leaving problems to fester without resolution is the wrong choice.
Therefore, I'm wondering whether community members believe that alternative dispute resolution strategies would be effective. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 17:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like rescinding the topic ban was a mistake. As with others, will be interested to see if there is evidence of broader issues that the community needs us to solve. Elli (talk | contribs) 10:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Jéské Couriano, this was the state of the discussion when I told Springee that they were correct that they could not engage. Not exactly a BANEX situation. I'm in agreement that I'd like to see, as HB has said, a sample of diffs showing broader issues that Arbcom is needed to address. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, I think there's enough reasonable concern about other editors and HB makes a solid point about facts being substantially undisputed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say I'm not really sold on the calls for Eek's recusal. Eek didn't search for diffs when no one else is, they Perus[ed] the ANI and the various threads and diffs. That ANI thread is what started this and is linked to in the initial case request. It's expected that arbs review the links and diffs provided at a case request to determine if there needs to be a case or if there is something that can be handled with a motion instead of dragging parties through a month-plus under the microscope. Surely we're not supposed to vote on accepting a case without reviewing the ANI thread and the evidence provided there? Saying that upon initial review it looks possible that a motion could handle it and then saying This issue belies a simple answer, and it appears a full case is necessary is how it's supposed to work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft, the initial ANI report contained A non-exhaustive list of examples from the last couple months includes Talk:Drum magazine, Talk:Magazine (firearms), Talk:AR-15–style rifle, WP:RSN, User talk:Lightbreather, User talk:Lightbreather, User talk:Lightbreather, User talk:Anastrophe, and User talk:Anastrophe. Everything can be found reviewing those links, e.g. the first User talk:Lightbreather link contains discussion on Gun show loophole which leads to Eek's first diff, then Eek had another User talk:Lightbreather diff, a User talk:Anastrophe diff, and a diff from Talk:Drum magazine. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this opinion. Eek's review was reasonable. Izno (talk) 23:05, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Recused - Aoidh (talk) 07:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am waiting for statements --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:24, 25 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept – there's clearly something to unpack here based on the evidence provided and it can't be done by motion. Regarding calls for Eek's recusal, I'm unconvinced. Proposing to resolve case requests by motion is totally normal and requires substantive analysis of the available evidence. So does voting on whether to accept a case, for that matter. Predicting how a case might go for a party is not the same thing as saying that you've predetermined all of your votes in that case; if anything, Eek seems to be saying that she might want to avoid the siteban she foresees, which is in line with the fact that she generally doesn't like coming down like a ton of bricks. I don't see how any of that prejudices her. If Eek recuses or is made to recuse here, I think arbs in future proceedings are going to be much more worried about being too frank with the community or too transparent with potential parties. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:48, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, noting my preference to have the broadest party list possible, and (like always) to consider the conduct of all parties. Daniel (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Izno (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This page was redesigned at the edge.

A page that knows where it met you.

Gun control

Proposed parties

Statement by Extraordinary Writ