Please note that User:Lightbringer has since been renamed to User:Lightbringer (usurped - blocked). User:LightBringer is 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

Nominal defendant

Lightbringer (talk · contribs)

Statements by Complaining Witnesses

Statement by MSJapan

User:Lightbringer has repeatedly reinserted an edit regarding Freemasonry and Satan Worship that has been factually proved wrong, yet he deleted that part of the argument in favor of his own viewpoint. Through discussion, he has shown that he is not at all interested in NPOV, but rather in showing the world the evils of Freemasonry through uncited or poorly cited sources, relying on zealotry rather than fact.

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)[reply]

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 Jack the Ripper and Juwes(noted by User:CambridgeBayWeather), a similar denial of wrongdoing, and furthermore, a distinct possibility that Lightbringer was or is using a sockpuppet called User:Squaredeal to perform the same sorts of edits he was making as Lightbringer. I was unaware of this until now, but I think this definitely points to the existence of a systematic issue regarding Lightbringer and any tangentially Masonically related subject. MSJapan 02:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the lock on the article expired, User:Lightbringer has violated 3RR, and in the process reverted an edit for length concerns of Freemasonry that also provided a link to the full information in Anti-Freemasonry, claiming "destruction" of said information, when that was clearly not the case. This situation has to end. MSJapan 06:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DreamGuy

I'll try to keep this brief. User:Lightbringer now denies being an anti-Mason, but his edit history is quite clear, focusing only on edits to Freemasonry, Jack the Ripper, Juwes, and many others solely to include information from highly discredited anti-Mason sources as if they were factual. His first edits were on an anon IP account, User:24.68.243.40, where the exact same edits he has taken up under the Lightbringer banner started. His comments on that page shows that he thinks Masons are "are stupid and they are liars." Note that even the name of his account is a reference to the claim that Freemasons worship Lucifer. He falsely claims that I am a Freemason solely because I undo his policy-violating edits, and he makes personal attacks against anyone and everyone who removes the bias he keeps inserting. A quick look at his edit history shows no attempt to follow the NPOV, WP:V and WP:NPA policies. He is now full aware that his attempted edits on Freemasonry go against clear consensus and violate policy, yet he consistently puts them back (accompanied by insults) regardless of the number of editors who remove it. DreamGuy 04:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WegianWarrior

I'll try to be short and to the point. In my opinion, User:Lightbringer seems to be in violation of several Wikipedia policies and guidelines; including but not nececarely limited to WP:NPOV (demanding to insert his own POV into NPOV articles to 'balance' them), WP:V (see DreamGuy's statement above, and User:Lightbringer's edithistory), WP:POINT (starting at least editwar, which has so far resulted in at least one page being locked), and WP:NPA (both in his edit summaries and in talkpages). Futhermore he has on at least one occation I am aware about deleated an entire section of a talkpage with no explonation or edit summary - a section not even discussing anything remotly to do with his edits (later he added a comment in the restored section, claming the section was proof of "masonic POV").

User:Lightbringer also pushes his POV in other articles more or less related to Freemasonery - I got directly invoved when I tried to NPOV and improve the visual apperance of Stephen Knight, when User:Lightbringer changed the imagedescription to suit his POV.

User:Lightbringer also shows a disregard for talkpage conventions, by adding new subsections both at the top and bottom - but I'm willing to look past this due to his (claimed) unfamilarity with Wikipedia. WegianWarrior 06:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reverted. --SarekOfVulcan 23:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by CambridgeBayWeather

While involved in RC patrol I came across what appeared to be a copyrighted article on List of proposed Jack the Ripper suspects from Freemasonry Watch that had been placed there by [User:Lightbringer]. I tagged it with a copyvio notice. A few minutes later I realised my error and went back and reverted it to the last non-copyright version. After checking to see if there were any more edits by this user I found that Juwes was also a direct copy from Freemasonry Watch and I reverted it. I also notified Lightbringer on his talk page. He has since stated that these articles are not copyright material, and while not expressly stated on the Freemasonry Watch page I would, and did, assume that the copyright is implied. He also, without proof, stated that "you and other Masons don't seem to mind continually cut and pasting Masonic propaganda directly from Masonic websites." I am not a Mason and I do not believe that I have made any edits to any other Masonic themed page. I have most certainly not copied any material from any website, be it Masonic or otherwise. I was unaware of any edit war going on between these parties and of this RfA until notified of it by User:MSJapan CambridgeBayWeather 03:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.Lightbringer 11:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

Accept Fred Bauder 22:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. James F. (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept ➥the Epopt 04:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kelly Martin 23:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction

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

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) Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks

Passed 7 to 0 at 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

2) Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View

Passed 7 to 0 at 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

3) Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox

Passed 7 to 0 at 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Personal attacks

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

Passed 7 to 0 at 23:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Strong POV regarding Freemasonry

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

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)

Lightbringer banned from Freemasonry-related subjects and talkpages indefinitely

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

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 Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lightbringer and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Lightbringer, Lightbringer is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

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 by sanctioned editors

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:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

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:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

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 Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lightbringer and [7]. Thatcher131 12:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]