This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Question regarding topic banned SPA account
Hello Salvio giuliano,
I know that you're familiar with AE and you're active in that field. I had a simple question concerning Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/E4024: since the master account is indefinitely topic banned from all topics related to Greece, Turkey, and Armenia, isn't it appropriate to revert all his contributions under the SPA in those areas? Can the rollback feature be applied in this case as well? Thanks in advance, Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Salvio,
Can you let me know about this? If not, it's fine. I can ask someone else. Thanks, Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I apologise for the delay in replying; I read your question, had to get away from the computer before answering and then, erm, I forgot... Anyway, yes, per policy, edits made in violation of a ban can, in general, be reverted on sight; however, my personal suggestion would be to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis, to make sure that as a result of the reversion the articles are not made worse (per WP:IAR). SalvioLet's talk about it! 13:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Question about alternative accounts
Greetings. I have a question about the legality of a potential alternative account, but the nature of the question is such that it would involve disclosing some personal info. Would you be willing to discuss this over email? Much thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Salvio giuliano. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this consensus discussion? I know you did this last month, but it wasn't a formal consensus discussion, but now it is. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Catalina
☆
Have an invisible barnstar for bringing an extra touch of class to an Arbcom page. pablo 10:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Was about to say the opposite. While I agree with the expressed sentiment, have an invisible minnow for making ArbCom sound pompous. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh hell, now we will have to seek a third opinion and attempt to build consensus ... pablo 11:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
No way. I'll see you at ANI! Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
:) Just link it to the orations article. Some class in this case: Malvolio, Chaucer, Catullus Cicero. I'm waiting for a ref to the wisdom of Groucho to appear. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Outside of a dog, Wikipedia is mans best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to edit. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Ta-daaah ;) - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I do love my audience – but I do love Groucho more, I have to admit, though my personal quote would be I don't care to belong to any committee that will have me as a member.
Regarding Latin, I know it's somewhat contentious, but I blame it on my education: in Italy, Latin is compulsory in all licei (a type of secondary schools); as all good classicisti, I also had to take ancient Greek, but have entirely forgotten it by now... SalvioLet's talk about it! 13:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Curses!
You foiled my master plan of trying to ensnare all of Arbcom into wading into GG and thus having to mass-recuse...or no doubt that is what 8chan will run with now. But seriously, I never even foresaw that aspect of it, just wanted more eyes and see if it works. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration declined
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, → Call meHahc21 15:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Salvio, it looks to me like [1] still requires a vote (one way or the other) or an abstention from you. AndreasJN466 19:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
You're quite correct; however, there are some suppressed diffs which will probably influence my vote that need to be discussed in private with the editor in question. That's part of the reason I opposed the motion to close. SalvioLet's talk about it! 19:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I saw your block extension due to block evasion. While it certainly does seem suspicious given the SPI findings, I think there is a possibility that this is someone stirring the pot. Lightbreather and I have has issue in the past, but she does not seem dumb enough to do something so blatant, particularly while being blocked. I note that when I look at the geolocate for the "evasion" ip, http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/69.16.147.185 it is listed as "Recently reported forum spam source" which indicates to me that it may be some sort of compromised IP, or botnet. If that is the case that implies someone really went through a lot of trouble to impersonate LB, by finding a compromised host to post from in the right location, but I thought I would point it out to you. While current participants in the case would seem to be the most likely culprits, I will also point out that Kumioko stirred the pot before with IP socking and poking a stick at LB. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Gaijin42, apparently Lightbreather has been reverting evidence about herself using another IP, according to Hell in a Bucket. If so, how does preventing more account creations stop that I wonder? Or am I not understanding? EChastain (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It would not stop that, You really can't stop that type of thing short of a rangeblock, but it does extend the sanctions on her main account, and provide a paper trail. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, but the most reasonable thing to do here, in my opinion, is to apply Occam's razor and conclude it was Lightbreather... SalvioLet's talk about it! 09:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Logging D/s alert
If a user had been notified about D/S and later, the logged notification was removed[2] after community consensus. Question is, if the editor has been notified again about the DS alert, the recent notification has to be logged or not? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Notifications no longer need to be logged, because they are tracked using the edit filter now – see here. SalvioLet's talk about it! 12:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Evidence on blocked user's talk
Hello Salvio,
Lightbreather keeps adding evidence to her talk to support that I'm a sock of Sue Rangell. Some of it has been transferred to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell. Other editors are supporting this, so I felt it was necessary to respond on the investigation page, since my responses on Lightbreather talk were habbed.
Do you think it's important to continue defending myself, since she is continuing to add evidence and show no sign of stopping. She's asking other editors to suggest names of who else I might be, so this could go on forever. What do you think? I'd rather just ignore it, but would that be unwise? I wasn't notified of her accusations against me on her talk until it was well under way (another editor informed me), so could something important happen about me that I wouldn't know about? Thanks for any advice you might wish to give me. EChastain (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I copied LB's most recent evidence to the SPI. Her allegations are relevant only because it was her initial allegations/evidence that were deemed sufficient enough to start the SPI in the first place. Personally I don't see her additional evidence as being more damaging to you (while simultaneously possibly digging herself in further with a WP:STICK) So at this point I think the best course would be for you to ignore it, unless you have something really important to say about one of her points. Either people will think you are a WP:DUCK, or not, but her additional thoughts are unlikely to sway people one way or another. Also I would say that I think your responses to some of the items were very helpful in reducing my (and others) initial "wow, thats suspicious" position to be something more like "there are some coincidences there, but maybe not enough to take action on". Most of her recent points boil down to that you said things to/about her that she doesn't think were nice. The more concrete ones (Robert Spitzer in particular) You have already pointed out the issues with sufficiently. Too much defense on your part risks running into The lady doth protest too much, methinksGaijin42 (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
@Gaijin42: Agree her evidence is a crock and that she doesn't know what she's doing. But isn't it magical how she can post evidence for an SPI while blocked! Thought that was called WP:EVADE (posting for a blocked user). Why does she have to prove someone is a sock of Sue Rangell now, this instant. It has nothing to do with her block. Why can't she just apologise, ask for an unblock, then post whatever evidence she has on her own. But no, it has to be done this minute, before the arbcom closes, perhaps so that maybe the arbcom findings can be invalidated if it appears a Sue Rangell sock was involved. She's making a huge display, and talk page access while blocked is usually removed for such disruption.
I know I over-posted my defence, but when I saw my responses habbed into invisibility on her talk, my attempts to give her good advice made into a horrible act, while others sprinted to post her SPI "evidence" while habbing mine into invisibility on her talk, I really thought that something was up. I never would have known if another editor hadn't pinged me about it. My, how the most innocent acts can be twisted.
I was preparing to update Andrew Weil with evidence from his Harvard days when he was largely responsible for getting Timothy Leary and Richard Alpert fired, and conducted research studies on marijuana with permission from the FDA, published in Nature and Look and other juicy details. But to hell with that. EChastain (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The evidence provided by Lightbreather is singularly unpersuasive, so, if I were in your shoes, I'd probably stop responding and let the good people at SPI evaluate it on its merits. Again, if I were the CU actioning the case, I'd close it without action because I wouldn't consider it proven that you operated the Sue Rangell account as well. However, since I was the one who extended Lightbreather's block, I'd rather let someone else deal with the investigation.
That said, my feeling is that the EChastain account may be an undisclosed alternative account and, for that, that it may not have been permissible for you to comment on the arbitration case using it; then again, the case has now closed, so even if that were proven, a block now would probably be punitive and, so, against policy. SalvioLet's talk about it! 09:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not an "undisclosed alternative account". It was perfectly permissible to comment on the arbitration case, as I've no history with Lightbreather, Carolmoorecd, Neotarf or the GGTF. What caught my attention enough to register was Neotarf's section heading on Newyorkbrad's talk about Hell in a Bucket's comment on Jimbo Wales talk. But feel free to strike my comments on the arbcon case if you feel in some way they're improper. My initial interest in getting an account to add content has dissipated anyway, since looking into the background of the editors involved and getting a feel for how disruptive they've been for quite a while. EChastain (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am wondering what you make of the claims by Lightbreather that he/she was framed for the actions leading up to the block extension. A Joe job sort of thing.
I don't think it is plausible. The behavior was so idiosyncratic and not the clumsy impersonation that normally comes along with a Joe job.
Just wanted to see if you saw any merit in the claim. Chillum 10:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
No, I agree with you and I don't see any merit in the claim. There is no gentle way of saying this, but, put simply, I don't believe her when she says she didn't do it; she has already lied before, when she denied operating the first IP (the one for which she was originally blocked), so I don't attach much credence to her protestations. SalvioLet's talk about it! 15:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I am glad we are on the same page then. Thank you. Chillum 17:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I think she was lucky to not have been blocked longer but honestly doesn't the block expire in a few hours anyways. Time served then let her go about wasting the WP:ROPE. Why try to stop the self destructive behavior, Lightbreather is doing far more damage to her image then anyone could for her. The Case is done, the evasion was her but now let her weave her path of destruction until people see the real person behind the proclaimed motives. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Or maybe she was out the door to have dinner with her husband. Hell in a Bucket, what exactly does your comment accomplish here? GorillaWarfare(talk) 02:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought the WP:ROPE reference was pretty clear. The purpose of the block is moot at this point. The amount of bullshit that you and every other admin put up with this has been extraordinary. Normally when you have multiple unblock requests, outing, god knows how many pings and the dishonest behaviors leading to and after and we are still allowing the madness? At a minimum that block would have been extended to talk page access removed and possibly an indef block for the repeated attempts to out other editors. Let's assume for one moment Lightbreather is absolutely correct in her assessment that this is all somehow my fault for starting the investigation that eventually linked her to the ip she was using. How has Lightbreather's behavior, including attempted outing of at least 4 editors including some that had to be rev-deleted since being blocked has been completely ignored? Now it's not actually outing except the incident needing revdel but according to Lightbreather's version of outing it certainly is. That raises the point is she really acting on principle of privacy or is this disruption to prove a point and draw attention away from her own consequences? If she is serious that she has been harassed and violated and outed why on god's green earth has she attempted to WP:OUT anyone else she has had an opportunity to? I'm sure you can see her page but feel free to ask for diffs I'll be happy to give examples of how many different times she has tried to or has outed other editors since her block has been up. The other thing to review is that Lightbreather didn't think she was an involved party, how in the blue hell was she not an involved party, she was involved in the case request, the first person filing evidence and then all of a sudden she retires and then comes back as an anon Ip. That IP basically picks up where she leaves off on a crusade against EC then she declares she wasn't an involved party and offers a checkuser, it comes down to time and she gets called on that and all of a sudden it's harrassment and outing. You really expect people to take her word at face value? She has proven one thing, she lied, it's foolish to think she wouldn't do it again to serve her purpose. Let's go ahead and dismiss all that and assume that the world is pink and that Lightbreather has done no wrong and will not repeat their behavior letting them out of their block will ultimately tell that. I think that I've made my expectations abundantly clear, I think based on their actions they will continue self destructive behaviors and that they will eventually wear out the good faith of the remaining community support as they already have through their own actions then the result will be the same as Neotarf and CMDCC. The fact that they were caught so late in the process of the case was regrettable because I think the committee was so tired of the situation at that time they choose to ignore the issue largely just to close out the case. So what am I accomplishing here I'm pointing out the reason's it's ridiculous to take her statements at face value and exhorting a WP:ROPE offer to let her prove me wrong or let her help dig her own grave. Ultimately it's her choice, and choices that has brought her here and will take her where the choices lead. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
What LB had done was not dishonesty. Even if it WAS dishonesty, it is OK, as explained here [3]. When she found that her anomymity was being compromised freely by you, without anyone taking any action on you to stop you, it is plausible that she too should feel free to extend the favor to others. Please stop trying to make cases where X is wrong only when she does X, but not when she is having the same X done to her with complete impunity.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
You should familiarise yourself with the Essjay controversy and its serious consequences. That said, LB can say whatever she wants to protect her privacy; then again, if she lies, then she can't complain when people no longer consider her trustworthy, which is what happened here. SalvioLet's talk about it! 10:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I have read that article before, and am quite familiar with its contents. In my reading ( at least ) Jimbo was quite OK as long as the fibbing was only for the purpose of protecting anonymity, he withdrew his support to Essjay only when he learned that Essjay had used his false idendity for purposes other than protecting his anonymity. So, my point that fibbing is OK when done to protect anonymity stands. You can say whatever you want, but I still don't see why it was OK for Essjay to fib in order to protect his anonymity, but not for LB. This seems discriminatory to me. As far as I am concerned, anonymity is a vital part of this project, and if a few fibs become necessary to protect one's anonymity, users should be able to do it without any censure for that. That is what LB did, and she did no wrong there in my book.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Anonymity is what this project is about and Lightbreather willingly gave that anonymity up when she provided that information on wiki. If she dislikes those consequences there again it's choices she made that lead her to this point. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Did she give up her anonymity willingly ? Really ? No ! I seriously doubt that.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you think she somehow forgot what diffs are when she is posting them up and around the page? The info was on her userpage and the page she plastered all over wiki when she was trying to raise awareness. That's about as public as you can get. It seems like you are asking us to assume stupidity in this case, Lightbreather is many things but stupid is not one of them. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between doing something "willingly" and doing something after being forced into a corner, and having been left no option except doing it, and when doing it no longer results in greater negative consequence because it has already been done by someone else, and any negative consequences are already there.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Nope. You can ask her if she did it "willingly" or not. If she did not do it "willingly", you are misrepresenting her intentions, or, at least, misreading her intentions. There is no wikilawyering in pointing out misrepresentations or misreadings.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
And, aside from that, LB isn't being sanctioned for fibbing; she's being sanctioned for block evasion. The fact she fibbed merely means that I don't attach any credence to her protestations she didn't do it – because, you know, she fibbed before to protect her privacy, so she could be fibbing again for the same goal (and/or to avoid the consequences of her actions). SalvioLet's talk about it! 11:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
She is being sanctioned for block evasion because her protestation that it is not her is being disbelieved. She is being disbelieved because she is being deemed untrustworthy because she had fibbed to protect her anonymity. So, it boils down to -- she is being sanctioned because she had fibbed to protect her anonymity. There is no reason for her to fib again to protect her privacy because she has already admitted the previous IP was her. The matter of her fibbing been dealt with thusly, I see no reason to disbelieve her claim that she did not make the edit for which her block was extended. So, her trying to evade the consequences for her actions does not arise because it is now a trustworthy claim that she did not make that edit at all.OrangesRyellow (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Let's recap: she violated the sock puppetry policy by editing logged out to avoid scrutiny, now claiming she was doing it to protect her privacy, even though using an IP address gives away much more information than simply using an account; when first asked about it, she lied about it and, when called out on her lie with evidence, adopted a whacky interpretation of WP:OUTING – one which runs counter to the letter of the policy, at that – to silence the person who was providing the evidence in question.
For her sock puppetry, Lightbreather was blocked, in spite of her continued protestations of innocence and, a short time later, another IP address removed the information she wanted removed, adopting the same whacky interpretation of WP:OUTING.
Now, she's once again protesting her innocence. However, there is enough here to consider that it's likely it was Lightbreather again. And, while an editor with a reputation for truth could probably have been given the benefit of the doubt, since she so recently lied about the very same issue, she doesn't. Quite frankly, on this issue I consider Lightbreather singularly unpersuasive.
So, once again, she's not being sanctioned merely because she lied in the past, but rather because on the balance of probabilities it is likelier she was the one operating the second IP than not. And this is the last comment I'm going to make on the issue. SalvioLet's talk about it! 15:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I have already explained again and again that she had fibbed in order to protect her anonymity and demonstrated through the Essjay controversy precedent that a user continues to be trustworthy if they have fibbed in order to protect their anonymity. But you continue to regard her as untrustworthy because she fibbed in order to protect her anonymity. Your basis for regarding her as untrustworthy has no substance after the EssJay controversy precedent has been shown to you.
And, while an editor with a reputation for truth could probably have been given the benefit of the doubt, since she so recently lied about the very same issue, she doesn't. You seem to have problem AGFfing when other are willing to do so. For example, here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yogesh_Khandke/Archive_2#April_2012 you declared "So, in short, this is no miscarriage of justice, in my opinion; as far as I'm concerned, Yogesh has indeed socked." but others were willing to consider the possibility that the ed in question may not have socked and the ed was eventually unblocked by Dougweller partly because of that doubt. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&type=block&page=User:Yogesh_Khandke with the edit summary (see talk page, there is some doubt and the block serves little purpose now)
Perhaps you would consider loosening your AGFfing standards as you can now see that your AGFing standards are probably too high ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Your view is flawed from the get-go: "she had fibbed to protect her anonymity". As Salvio pointed out, using the IP didn't protect her anonymity as it disclosed her location. Otherwise, it made no difference to her anonymity. All it did was ensure she wasn't subject to scrutiny for those postings: if that's what you mean by "protecting her anonymity" that's never legitimate. DeCausa (talk) 17:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Fib? This user lied(it is not a fib unless you are a child) about engaging in sock puppetry, comparisons to SJ are without parallel and a bit tacky. If you lie about being a sock puppet then you have damaged your credibility in that area.
I was asked to choose between two scenarios, one where someone who has a recent history of lying about sock puppetry is lying about engaging in sock puppetry and another scenario that involved clever impersonation and conspiracy.
LB lied and I think she lied again, if she is telling the truth and is not being believed then I guess that is the result of crying wolf.
This is getting silly. This is a routine response to behavior that is seen every day here. This is more about who LB is than what LB has done. Chillum 17:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Also you don't log out to gain privacy. Privacy is when you avoid an edit being associated with your public identity, logging out reveals your IP and compromises privacy. People log out of their main account to avoid an edit being associated with their main account.
Logging out to edit a controversial area is evasion of scrutiny, not protection of privacy. That was the effect of her actions and I believe the motives as well. Chillum 17:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Also I notice a pattern here. Days of begging by LB and supporters here and on LBs talk page. Even though I said my review could be redone no other unblock request has been made. Even though supporters argue for days with the blocking and reviewing admin there is no escalation to a noticeboard.
I think I know why. LB may realize another unblock request will be declined. Those requesting the block be undone may realize that if it is taken to the community that the community will support the decision. Chillum 17:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, Salvio, Chillum and myself are all casting aspersions [[4]]. I am sick of her running her mouth so I posted a few links [[5]] to clear up any confusion that we were casting aspersions without evidence. I am going to request that if her block is not extended as it should have been for the outing and clear WP:COMPETENCE issues can we issue some sort of discretionary sanction because I'm pretty irritated to continue being accused of casting aspersions, outing and anything else she cooks up in the there that it may help all around. I don't want to sit and take it but if that's the solution I guess that's what I'll have to do. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
How about an I-ban between you two ? That should bring peace of mind for both, and solve a lot of hassles for others too. As it is, both of you seem to be frustrated with each other.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestion. There is a discussion about this on my talk page.[6]Lightbreather (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The block is over now and we are going around in circles. No sense continuing this. It is your prerogative to be hard and unrelenting on others, rest assured, your day will come, and get as good as you give.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Since this section is titled with my username, here is my for the record reply to a similar discussion Hell in a Bucket started on OrangesRyellow's talk page[7] before Chillum started this one.
Hell in a Bucket's statement, "I called them out in a separate subheading as an involved party," proves that he argued that I was an involved party, not that I was one. There are seven editors named on the GGTF ArbCom's Involved parties list, I am not one of them.
Hell in a Bucket's claim that my defense against the SPI was a lie is notWP:AGF. My defense was: Per Defending yourself against claims, I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry.[8] I still believe that, and to stand by what you believe is not a lie.
He has also said that presenting evidence in the case made me an involved party. If providing evidence makes someone an "involved party," then there should be 20 names on the case's involved parties list instead of seven.[9]
Request: Salvio, would you please, per WP:TALKNEW, change this section's heading? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
OK. Chillum, would you please, per TALKNEW, change this section's heading? Lightbreather (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you should drop it, Lightbreather. You are protesting too much about, erm too much. It really isn't doing you any favours. I'm surprised that Salvio hasn't hatted this thread, given he tried to bring a stop to it a couple of days ago. Maybe get back into the swing of editing articles? The sooner you do, the sooner all this stuff will be forgotten. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Congrats
... old and new arb! So far arbitration was (for me at least) a synonym for waste of time, and ideally it shouldn't even be needed, - let's work on that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
