User talk:EChastain

Welcome

Hello, EChastain, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Getting started Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Help directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

arbcom

You are clearly editing in response to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force. Please follow Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, specifically regarding WP:RS. You do not seem to be adhering to a neutral point of view. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:EvergreenFir There are no reliable sources in Mansplaining supporting your claim that it's an academic concept. No reason for your revert. EChastain (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There are. Read WP:LEAD. Also see Talk:Mansplaining#Meme. Attempting dispute resolution. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:EvergreenFir, I read WP:LEAD, and Mansplaining doesn't follow it. It doesn't have a lead that can stand alone and sums up the article:

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

EChastain (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Your recent editing history at Mansplaining shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't even give me 3 minutes to post on the talk page before reverting. After posting the screenshot of the article that you didn't read, you still reverted anyway. WP:IDHT. I'll let others weigh in. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: you should know better than to revert three minutes after my revert (which I had justified on talk) without engaging on the talk page or even reading it. You had not responded to the link I gave to the scholarly article you used for the citation, proving that it didn't say what you claimed it did. I have posted quite a bit on talk, while you have posted nothing of relevance, except to claim that you have no time to look into the problems and asking others to do it. Really? What made it so important that you must revert without knowing anything at all about why? Please, be a more professional academic if you're going to claim you're one, or you'll make us all look bad! EChastain (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PG. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Help:Watching pages. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a good deal of freedom in what you write. DSCrowned^(Talk) 14:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@DSCrowned: How was my edit to Help:Watching pages that you reverted a "joke edit"? I corrected labelled Wikipedia:Talk page stalker listed under the "See also" section a "humorous essay". Wikipedia:Talk page stalker says

So I don't see how my edit could be called a "joke edit" and reverted on those grounds. EChastain (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@EChastain: Just remember that every Wikipedia article, policy page and help page shouldn't be humorous or contain jokes, unless tagged with the {{humour}} tag. Thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia though. DSCrowned^(Talk) 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I might be wrong, I think your telling me that this article is a humorous article. Oh that's why I am sorry. DSCrowned^(Talk) 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timothy Treadwell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Refactor

Go read WP:REFACTOR. I'm perfectly allowed to improve the format of the page. I did not edit your comment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

User:EvergreenFir, you're not the hall monitor. Stop acting like one. Go read WP:REFACTOR. Your refactoring was not for any of the right reasons. Stop following me around on arbcom. I don't think very many other editors find your comments useful. EChastain (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

p.s. User:EvergreenFir, you don't know what you're talking about on Mansplaining, but it's not worth my time dealing with you. I would expect a better understanding of what reliable sourcing is from a teacher or an "academic" which you claim to be. The uninformed statement that people such as you decide what a social phenomenon is versus a slur is pompous silliness. EChastain (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Following you around when you pinged me? You really don't get how WP works. Also I do recommend reading WP:REFACTOR since you clearly have not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Also learn how to WP:INDENT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• You two are getting heated over some indents, come on it isn't worth it. EChastain you shouldn't have made such a big deal about indents, Evergreen you should have just left it alone. There are plenty of other problems to worry about here on Wikipedia for now I recommend to read up on WP:CIVIL. To EChastain's credit though editors can get heated when their comments are refactored so I understand why the upset feelings but as I said making a mountain over a molehill here - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Knowledgekid87. I thought about the formatting carefully when posting as the thread had become lost in a maze of indents. Removing the outdent decreased my comment's readability, perhaps her intention as she has dismissed my previous comments or unhelpfully lectured me, so I had no reason at all to assume good faith. I'm tired of being meddled with and lectured by EvergreenFir. EChastain (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hey I don't know if you found this yet but we have Userboxes here on Wikipedia. =) I cant make you place userboxes on your main page but its always nice to find out more about a person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

All you need to do is copy/paste the template {{User:Feureau/UserBox/ProudWikipedian}} for example onto your Userpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

ok, I'll check them out and see if any are relevant to me. Thanks! EChastain (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, and welcome! One of the ones I saw you mention was you being a female, they have an infobox for that for example:

Have fun with your infoboxes =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, thanks, but I've removed the infobox. After reading through the GGTF arbcom, the comments by Carolmooredc and especially Neotarf, and the ridiculous POV agenda of the GGTF members, I've no wish to be identified as a women here on wikipedia.

This GGTF arbcom is out of control, and I think the final decision is likely to do harm to en:wiki and decrease the retention of editors that I admire. The lecturing know-it-all comments by EvergreenFir, and her agenda-driven take on mansplaining, for example, gives me the idea that en:wiki is being taken over by a new type of editor, far different from the many learned, well-educated and creative editors whose writing I've admired and respected from the early days. The way I feel now, I think I'll probably edit very little here in the future. EChastain (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

There are tons of areas on Wikipedia, I find my main home editing manga and anime related articles. Yeah editors might leave but hey there is just as much of a chance that new ones will come to replace them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(edid conflict) Yeah, en:wiki has been diminishing since 2006 or so in my eyes. In fact, I've not edited for a very long time but I find the atmosphere is so changed now that I've little appetite. Maybe a few edits here and there, but certainly I'll never put the energy into writing, editing, adding reliable sources that I did in the past. No point when these new editors don't even seem to understand reliable sourcing. EChastain (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to add too that I am sure this has happened in the past as well, the supporters are there because over time friendships have formed so when someone points out a flaw in someone of course the yare going to rush to their defense. The sides were already present long before the arbcom case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not any particular article, as I've wide ranging interests. it's the new mentality exemplified by EvergreenFir's revert of a comment by Giano on Jimbo's talk page, calling him a troll. EvergeenFir is a symptom of the future here. EChastain (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If you call anyone a troll it is in bad taste though and Giano has had a grudge against Jimbo for quite some time now to the point of disruption. My advice would be to just edit in places Evergreen is not present. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87, regarding your comment about "supporters" and "friendships" above, I didn't have a "side" until I started reading the GGTF arbcom and looking at editors' behavior. I think it's a simplification to say Giano has had a "grudge" against Jimbo for quite some time - saying that doesn't take into account the history over the years. Some don't agree with Jimbo, Jimbo doesn't like that, so over time disagreements with him are called "grudges". Jimbo has "grudges" too then, by repeatedly badmouthing specific editors as he has done. Up pop little Jimbo worshipers like EvergreenFir; there is a term for people like her that isn't gender-based, referring to a brown nose. That type of behavior I find disgusting. At least her revert was reverted with an edit summary that Giano isn't a troll. But when those editors, like the one who reverted EvergreenFir are gone, all will be lost. EChastain (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't get drawn into all of this until I got insulted by Eric Corbett while editing one day and I see I am not alone by looking at Dank. Editors are being drawn in here by a select few's actions and something is going to give eventually. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Eric Corbett can be rude. But I don't agree with the major premise of the GGTF editors that he is a misogynist or that his comments are sexual harassment. And I agree with Victoriaearle and Voceditenore, Montanabw and others that the GGTF is patronizing to women. EChastain (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it is for the best that the GGTF task force is shut down it already has a bad rep as it is. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi EChastain, responding to the ping. Just to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest the GGTF is patronizing, but rather that I think the arbitration proceedings are; nor do I dispute that there were some real problems on the GGTF page. What I'm trying to articulate, and perhaps not well, is that it would be better for the community to work out notions of civility, etc., rather than have the mostly-male arbitration committee choose bannings "because of the women". Things like that never really seem to work out well, but that's simply my opinion, and it probably would have been better to have stayed out of the fray. Victoria (tk) 18:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Victoriaearle, apologies for misrepresenting your comments to Knowledgekid87. I agree with you that the arbitration proceedings are patronising (I hope my long comments there didn't contribute to that). I think your words above are spot on: it would be better for the community to work out notions of civility, etc., rather than have the mostly-male arbitration committee choose bannings "because of the women". I also had trouble articulating my thoughts, and wasn't able to come up with a concise summary. There were so many things that bothered me about the whole thing. EChastain (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk revert again

Please read WP:FORUM. If someone complains about an article but makes it 90% about their beliefs and does not address the article in any substantive way, that's WP:FORUM. I know you have your POV on that article, as do I, and I know you dislike me but step back and look at the comment itself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, please post your comments about this article on the Mansplaining talk page (where I've responded), and refrain from personalizing my problems with the article. Please read WP:FORUM, a section of WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not for advocacy. EChastain (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

my comment was about your revert not the article hence why I posted here EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Request, please

@EChastain: Regarding this post,[1] would you mind rewording it? It could suggest that I am "massively disruptive" or incompetent.

Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: I think you're misreading what I said. I don't think saying you are likely "a good person" could lead to a finding against you. You're not even a party to this case. Anyway, my post there isn't going to have much if any influence on the arbcom, so if I were you I wouldn't worry about that. It would cause more disruption on that page if I started changing my post, I think. But if I were you, I wouldn't continue posting there. (Just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, which isn't much.) Best wishes, EChastain (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

How would you feel if I wrote something like this, off of your talk page (or at some equally inappropriate forum, like say an ArbCom about people other than yourself)?

I think most editors posting here or on GGTF are "a good person" (e.g.EChastain). But that doesn't mean they can't be massively disruptive on wikipedia, or that they have the competence required.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm truly sorry that you are offended. It was unintentional on my part; anyway you'd made it clear that you were leaving wikipedia forever over a month ago, driven off by Eric Corbett. I think you're making too much of this. The pronoun "they" refers to "most editors posting", and not to you. I've already made comments with diffs regarding my opinions about specific editors.

I used "good person" in the sense of "well-meaning" and intended to say that even well-meaning editors can still make unsupported statements, take the remarks of others too personally, push a POV etc., resulting in disruption to wikipedia.

If someone made the comment that I (specifically naming me) was "massively disruptive" or that I don't "have the competence required", with diffs offering evidence of my behavior, the factually accuracy of those statements about me would be for others to decide. I just gave my general opinion under "Final comments". Surely expressing my general view is ok, don't you think? It's just a drop in the ocean of that whole arbcom, and no one has said that you (Lightbreather) is "massively disruptive". EChastain (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gang bang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Americanism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EChastain. You have new messages at Lightbreather's talk page.
Message added 20:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You have a fan club it seems. do so hope they are wrong but I wqanted you to be aware the plot was a foot. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

SPI

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell.--v/r - TP 20:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Userpage

Please consider it isn't being used against you. I think that we have an editor upset they were caught and they are trying to sling mud everywhere. I have put evidence up on your behalf on the SPI. I'd just ignore this user and focus your claims on the investigation because it doesnt matter what they say. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but no. EChastain (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

For the record

(crossposted to EvergreenFir's talk)

• EvergreenFir, on your talk page Volunteer Marek is only asking you to do what any regular editor is supposed to do, even admins although your not one.

  If you are editing (and reverting) an article, you are also required to discuss the changes on talk.

  I had this problem with you on mansplaining. On my talk you repeatedly lectured me[2], [3] reverted my edits within minutes without any discussion on talk, templated my talk page, threating my with being blocked.[4]. Then said "You didn't even give me 3 minutes to post on the talk page before reverting."[5] You had already reverted my without any discussion on talk, as I explained to you.[6] Then you refactored my post at arbcom, justing that with another lecture.[7]Please follow what Volunteer Mark is saying you are required to do.

  I'm crossposting this to my own talkpage. EChastain (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@EChastain: First, I am not required to do anything. But I will discuss the edits about Crimea. Second, you are dipping your toes into WP:HOUNDING. You are not part of the Crimea page content dispute, so please don't insert yourself just because I am. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - you've made 11 posts on my talkpage including a template threatening me with a block for a revert (reverting without talkpage discussion being one of the subjects on your page made by another user, including your lack of discussion on article's talk, regarding your behavior in the Crimea content dispute) plus you refactored my comments on the arbcase, plus you reverted me twice without any corresponding explanation on the article's talk page, or discussing or even reading the article's talk. Who's "dipping" toes into WP:HOUNDING?

Here are your comments on this page, in chronological order:

1. "You are clearly editing in response to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force. Please follow Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, specifically regarding WP:RS. You do not seem to be adhering to a neutral point of view."
2. Lecture telling me to read WP:LEAD.
3. Templated my talk, with big red stop, including: Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing and recommending I read WP:BRD. (EvergreenFir, I'd reverted no more than you did, and I had discussed on article talk - you had not.)
4. Complaint that "You didn't even give me 3 minutes to post on the talk page before reverting" (EvergreenFir, you should discuss your explanation there before you continued to revert. Fortunately the other editors of that article mostly agreed with my comments on talk, including fixing the lead, and changes were made in the article, along the lines I was suggesting.)
5. "Go read WP:REFACTOR. I'm perfectly allowed to improve the format of the page" (EvergreenFir, yeah, by burying my comment under massive indents)
6. "Following you around when you pinged me? You really don't get how WP works. Also I do recomment reading WP:REFACTOR" (EvergreenFir, you're not required to respond to every notification, in case you didn't know, but I've stopped notifying you per your understanding of notification.)
7. "Also learn how to WP:INDENT." (Fortunately at this point Knowledgekid87 intervened, recommending that we both read WP:CIVIL, ending with: "To EChastain's credit though editors can get heated when their comments are refactored so I understand why the upset feelings but as I said making a mountain over a molehill here")
8. "Please read WP:FORUM"
9. "my comment was about your revert not the article hence why I posted here." (EvergreenFir, no. Discussions about reverts belong on the article talk page.)
10. "@EChastain: First, I am not required to do anything. But I will discuss the edits about Crimea. Second, you are dipping your toes into WP:HOUNDING. You are not part of the Crimea page content dispute, so please don't insert yourself just because I am."

    EvergreenFir, so who's WP:HOUNDING who?

11. "HOUNDING means you follow someone into areas you are not editing just because they are there. I've not followed you anywhere. Everywhere we've interacted, I've already been an editor there." EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

EChastain (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

HOUNDING means you follow someone into areas you are not editing just because they are there. I've not followed you anywhere. Everywhere we've interacted, I've already been an editor there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:HOUNDING "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

Does that fit what I did, per your accusation above? Or do you once again not really understand the policies/guidelines, essays that you tell me to read?

Please stop posting here. Stay away from my talk. EChastain (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

I admire the tenactiy of your defense and I find a lot of your answers reasonable. I would suggest on stop trying to convince both Lightbreather and Tparis, they have a singular vision which as they have stated has not altered. You can see yourself how weak some of the evidence is and it isn't even really connected. I'd be surprised if they find that you were Sue Rangell and if you are congrats on a great job thus far, you sure fooled me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

yeah, I agree. Lightbreather's so-called evidence is just ridiculous. Makes her seem flaky. Makes TParis look foolish that he takes it seriously. I read a long, passionate post to TParis from Lightbreather. I don't know what the agenda is there, but what's this thing about Sue Rangell? I get the idea if Carolmooredc and her sidekick can make me into Sue Rangell, apparently a vicious enemy of both of them, then they'll use that to overturn the arbcom decision. @Hell in a Bucket:, would it be ok for me to email you a question? EChastain (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

go for it. you know the email this user correct? my talkpage left side of the browser will send it to me. Even if you were a sock of there would be a block and that's about it. Sometimes when bad things happen you want them to happen to other people too, the interesting part remaining is that before her ban commenced it appears Carolmooredc said you weren't who she thought you were. Either way I'll wait for you email. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Just so you know..

I do not think you are Sue Rangell as there would be nothing to gain from it. Are you editing in areas that Sue was banned from? No, Sue's account is not even banned so why the need to sock? It bothers me I guess that you feel the need to hide information about yourself out of fear of others as you should feel free to express and be proud of yourself. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

My advice would be to ignore the comments made towards you as you are just going to get more of the same thing back, go edit someplace and enjoy Wikipedia rather than being involved in something you know isn't true. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well I am heading off to bed, I see that HIAB up above has been giving you the same advice to ignore things but for some reason you aren't listening to advice of editors who are only trying to help you here. I hope things turn out for the better, Wikipedia is a big place with thousands of articles to edit and tons of wiki-projects to invest your time in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

More or the same advice

Full disclosure, I think you're a returning editor using a new account. Thing is, I don't care and nobody else is going to care so long as you stay out of trouble. I don't see LB's SPI going anywhere but you're doing yourself no favors by fighting it so vehemently. You've already sufficiently cast doubt on it. Also, tone down the language a bit against LB like saying she doesn't know what she's doing, etc. And don't try to wikilawyer about whether she should even be able to be doing what she's doing while blocked. Around here the person carrying the stick is usually the one to get whacked with it. You're already in a bit of conflict with Evergreen above as well. They're a good editor and reasonable from what I've seen. She even came to your aid in the SPI. Edit somewhere you're not in a conflict for bit. Relax. I think you'll find it will all blow over.Capeo (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Capeo gives good advice, I will state on the record though the amount of proxying WP:EVADE on this case and pinging umpteen admin, arbs etc on any other person would have netted a talkpage restriction long long ago. Either way I'd stop adding evidence to counter it, it's clear you aren't Sue Rangell. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I concur that what's going on at LB's talkpage is, frankly, ridiculous. And that's all the more reason to stay far away from it. I doubt it's going to end well. Capeo (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

My prediction is that she is trying to prove Sue Rangell is responsible for her current situation and somehow was trying to evade the dispute and have privacy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a sound deduction. That said I'm not going to converse about LB anymore. I had a run in with her when she accused SCal of harassing her and I was, I believe, the first person to call out the IP as being her on the PD talk page. I'm sure she's watching this page. Don't need the headache of her claiming something about me next. Capeo (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Capeo: and @Hell in a Bucket: Thanks so much for giving me some emotional support. I've looked through Lightbreater's talk archives and it's obvious she has a disruptive history over some gun control articles primarily, and has caused several editors grief. Though she thanks StarryGrandma, she consistently failed to follow her mentor's advice. Agree that Sue Rangell is the target, not me. EChastain (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yet you ignored all our advice and went right after LB again. At this point you're doing exactly what you claim she's doing. I'll offer no further advice on the matter. Capeo (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If one is innocent of socking, then one has nothing to fear & so wouldn't/shouldn't be complaining about any SPIs. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Capeo, I'm not after Lightbreather. I don't care what happens to her, or to me for that matter. I've withdrawn my request at ANI. Mostly I'm just appalled at how things are handled here. Lightbreather's situation merely illustrates the regular wiki "goings on". The lack of transparency makes it very difficult to figure out what's going on and makes me question whether the effort of creating and writing content is worth it any more. I've never been in an arbcom case. or commented on one, but have followed some closely.

I admitted I had a strong reaction over the spamming of Hell in a Bucket's post, which led my to look into things. I haven't had an account for at least five years, editing as an IP. But with a change in personal circumstances, I remembered the pleasure of creating and writing articles in collaboration with others here. But this place has changed, or maybe I'm just seeing a different side. I suppose I can't go back to the IP again because I would be a sockpuppet then. All this talk about identifying the "Sock master" when it doesn't seem to occur to anyone that there isn't one in my case. But undoubtedly, if I edit more articles, there'll be continuing attempts to connect me to a Sock master, per Flyer22 who says her talents include "sniffing" out socks. Regrettably, EChastain (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply to GoodDay, I don't fear anything here. What's to fear? It's irritating that now I'm on the radar for others to snip at. But I don't have to continue editing. I have no compulsion to do so. But I do see now how editors are drawn into drama - much easier to be a drama queen/ king than to produce and edit content. EChastain (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If you keep protesting (here & other places), you risk creating the impression of someone who's guilty & trying to cover his/her tracks. Simply stop complaining & begin main space editing. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

EChastain, didn't I tell you to not mention me unless you are going to mention me correctly? You are not a new Wikipedia editor, which you have also confirmed. What I stated about you is that I knew you were not a new Wikipedia editor, because, obviously (to a very experienced Wikipedian such as myself), you are not. Now keep my username out of your mouth...er away from your fingers on the keyboard...unless there is an actual good reason to mention me and you mention me accurately. If you keep misrepresenting my statements and pinging me via WP:Echo when I don't want a thing to do with you, I will take you to WP:ANI for WP:Harassment. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)