User talk:Lightbreather

Kaffeeklatsch update

I have archived the Kaffeeklatsch discussions that were here. All the brouhaha had died down. If it fires up again in the future, I'll take care of it then. Lightbreather (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

I have just blocked you for violating the WP:OUTING policy in your post on AN I just suppressed. If you want to appeal this block, please use the {{unblock}} template. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano, can you tell me (email, I guess) what I "outed"? Lightbreather (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Mail sent. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this block is purely over the outing concern — I see on AN that there are other concerns — but if it is, I think it's excessive. I saw the post before it was suppressed, and of course I don't want to discuss any details of it, but IMO a warning would do. Bishonen | talk 19:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC).
  • On second thoughts, it's probably fairer to describe Lightbreather's conduct as a way to harass another editor all the while being able to claim deniability. Either way, I believe a block is necessary. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    • At the time Salvio blocked me, he had only 24 other edits for the month of April - nothing at the Administrators' noticeboard. Considering some of his past comments about me:

1. 23:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC) "Lightbreater is conducting herself as a vexatious litigant and a forum shopper, which is disruptive."
2. 10:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC) "I could support this only if Lightbreather was also topic banned from administrative noticeboards and restricted from requesting, suggesting, supporting, opposing, or even hinting at the possibility that another editor may be sanctioned, otherwise we are simply encouraging (and rewarding) vexatious litigations and forum shopping."
3. 19:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "[Lightbreather's] behaviour is, IMHO, generally disruptive: I consider her a vexatious litigant and a person who never drops the stick."
4. 20:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "72.223.98.118 and 69.16.147.185 (Lightbreather denies having operated the latter, but I didn't believe her and still don't)."
5. 21:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "Well, now we can add personal attacks to your list of transgressions."
6. 21:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC) "Yes, really. I commented on this personal attack because it's the one I saw."

And that he called me a liar/fibber at least four times in this conversation on his talk page, after I was blocked[1] (despite numerous explanations, private and public - such as this one [2] (scroll down to "Fifth") - about why I had edited while logged out) for "sock puppetry" back in November...

I believe Salvio is lacking in care and judgement (at least when it comes to me), and unable to maintain the non-biased, uninvolved position an admin should assume when judging a situation. Further, considering the evidence I just gave, as well as the reason he gave me privately about why he assumed I was outing someone, I believe it's possible that he's watching me for opportunities to block. Lightbreather (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. Perhaps you might like to explain why you came to my talk page yesterday? Eric Corbett 21:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fuck off, Eric. This is completely the wrong time for you to be posting here. I might review the block as an uninvolved admin tomorrow, unless the august company of oversighters have got somewhere with their discussion by then. Most of us ordinary middle-management admins can't review it, because they don't have access to the post Salvio blocked over, but I happened to see it before it was suppressed, as I noted above. I'll sleep on it. Very late here. Bishonen | talk 22:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

This comment was somewhat amusingly-timed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to "fuck off" Bishonen, if you'd be equally happy to tell Lightbreather to "fuck off" from my talk page. Which you don't appear to have done. Eric Corbett 00:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Lightbreather (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can someone get involved privately? I've got an email from Salvio - this was no outing. I am getting ready to go to my son's house, but I will check in if I can via phone, otherwise I'll be home later. Lightbreather (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per below, the initial charge of outing is not supported by consensus of the oversight-l team. Unblock is purely due to that, but I'm cautioning LightBreather that things really need to change, and fast. Courcelles (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: I propose to review this request by e-mail discussion with the blocking admin and the user. Although based on oversighted material, the block is clearly not an "oversight block" in any sense that would make it unsuitable for me to review it, see this and this: I'm in fact fully aware of the circumstances that led to the block. Lightbreather, you have been charged with outing, and you know why; please e-mail me explaining fully and frankly why you consider you didn't out anybody. Please don't waste your time attacking the blocking admin further, as I've seen all I need of that. Salvio giuliano, I'll be in touch, but if you have something to tell me right away (such as objecting to me reviewing the unblock request at all), then please message me, in public or private. Bishonen | talk 09:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

You need to be aware, Bishonen, that Salvio took the block itself, the block length, and the oversight to the Oversighters for review. The review has had extensive input and is almost complete. I mention this to avoid inadvertent duplication of efforts elsewhere.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's all right, Roger, I'll just leave it to the oversighters. After following Lightbreather's talkpage today, I've lost the will to unblock her. I still doubt the particular post in question was outing, but I rather hope you people block her for a long time for terminally bad attitude. I'm putting the unblock template back the way it was. Bishonen | talk 16:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad attitude? Eric is the curmudgeon's curmudgeon, but he's painted as cuddly, like a cartoon bear, and I'm treated like a shrew. (Interesting that WP redirects curmudgeon to "misanthrope.") Lightbreather (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow; this is a tremendously inappropriate block, regardless of the merits, for Salvio to be making. Salvio: your many comments about Lightbreather over an extremely long period demonstrate that there is no way you are uninvolved enough to make a call here. Someone - you or someone else - needs to unblock Lightbreather so that the situation can be evaluated by somebody who hasn't repeatedly declared LB to be acting in bad faith. Ironholds (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you please link to my many comments? I remember having commented on her conduct once after blocking her for block evasion, which is an interaction in my admin capacity, and once in an ANI or AN thread. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's see off the top of my head, describing her as a vexatious litigant and forum shopper, twice, who should be banned from the administrative noticeboards, and an entire talkpage section, ending here, about LB's behaviour, with extensive commentary from you. Yes, these were largely administrative in nature, and WP:INVOLVED does have (for very good reason) an expectation that people will not be considered involved solely for their work on a site administration basis. But that exception is based on the idea that it is purely administrative and never devolves from the relatively detached viewpoint an admin (ideally) maintains while dealing with users in a dispute; the example the policy provides is

Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'.

The attitude you've displayed in the diffs above, and the attitude you have displayed in this discussion ('it's probably fairer to describe Lightbreather's conduct as a way to harass another editor all the while being able to claim deniability') does not suggest that you have that detached viewpoint; it suggests that you have strong views about LB that does make you involved. And to quote from the policy again, "Although there are exceptions to the prohibition on involved editors taking administrative action, it is still the best practice in cases where an administrator may be seen to be involved to pass the matter to another administrator via the relevant noticeboards". This block may be completely justified - I'm not in the position to judge because I don't have OS access. But it should not have been performed by you. I'm agreed with and grateful to GW below for reaching out and getting more (qualified) eyeballs on this block. Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I had entirely forgotten about my comments on ARCA. Then again, as you recognise, those are all in an admin/arb capacity and, therefore, are not enough for me to be deeed involved. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

That sort of neatly glosses over the entire thing about what makes an admin or arb action uninvolved or involved, but whatever; it looks like other oversighters are on the problem, and your approach here is reading a lot like you realised you were wrong and decided the solution was to hunker down. This place'd work a lot better if people stopped being scared of admitting they made a bad call; everyone makes them. Ironholds (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not going to be the one to review the block, but I'm just noting here that I've emailed Salvio to clarify/discuss. An outside set of (oversighter) eyes might be valuable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen, Ironholds, and GorillaWarfare: How can I go about getting an (uninvolved or less involved, I hope) admin to review this? Lightbreather (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Salvio is going to begin a discussion on the oversight mailing list. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you know when this will happen, how long it might take, and whether or not I will I be able to participate? There is a discussion going on elsewhere where I am being misrepresented, and from here I have no way to defend myself. Lightbreather (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Or can I at least, for now, be granted permission to make a statement in that (ARE) discussion? Lightbreather (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, Callanecc, and Bishonen: Since I have been talked about prominently in the currently open EC ARE, I hope you would not close it before my block has been properly reviewed. I should like to make a statement. Lightbreather (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion has begun there now. I'm sure if any of the oversighters require your input, they will contact you. As for your participation in the AE discussion, I'll leave that up to the administrators that are helping with that request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Put your statement here (maybe in a new section, but it's your talk page) and someone can copy it across to AE for you. Do want the section below copied over as a "statement"? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I think I'm signing off for tonight. Lightbreather (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there some way to get Salvio relieved of CU/Oversight rights? I don't think I'm the only one who is uncomfortable about him having them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: The relevant policy is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight#Removals. Basically, if you have concerns that someone is abusing the tools, you need to detail these concerns to the Audit subcommittee. If you believe someone is no longer suitable to have the tools for some other reason then you need to explain why to the Arbitration Committee. Salvio holds the permissions as a result of his being elected an arbitrator, but would of course recuse from any discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I-ban: Lightbreather and Sitush

Just to tidy up all the current loose ends, an iban (under DS Arb:GGTF) is probably now needed. Easiest may be to roll it into the review of the oversighting, block length etc. I'll mention it on Sitush's talk in a moment,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering that Sitush already has an IBAN with Carolmooredc,[3] and he and Eric and others have the same high opinion of us - often comparing us - it's probably not a bad idea. Something I've said before: I've read Carol's views on many things and I don't think there is much of anything we see eye-to-eye on. The only thing I'd say we agree on is that to be a woman on Wikipedia, you'd better be ready to ignore incivility and sexism, or prepared to take a beating for complaining about it. For this reason, we are both lumped together as "militant feminists." It's ridiculous. Lightbreather (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, here's what's going on. Oversight-l has reached a consensus that no outing took place here. Therefore, I've unblocked you, in my personal capacity as an admin. Also, in that capacity, I'm going to give a fairly strong warning to stay out of drama, and to try and avoid getting in entanglements with other users. Focus on articles, and leave project-space and the drama alone for a while. It'll help you enjoy this place better. What you did could be considered snippy, and you need to avoid that in the future, but a consensus of oversighters is that it was not in violation of the outing policies. You've been blocked for three days now, and in my personal opinion (and explicitly not a decision of the oversight team), that's plenty enough time for this incident. Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Courcelles, there's an unblock request template up above. Please change it so the page is removed from the Requests for unblock category. Bishonen | talk 18:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC).

• Let me be crystal clear before I deal with Bishonen's comment, which I'll do in a second. You and Sitush need to stop the drama. If it doesn't stop, I will be issuing what interaction bans I consider useful under WP:ARBGGTF to stop it. I'm not endorsing you conduct since the block. I reversed it because it was made on a false charge of misconduct. Courcelles (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
• Further again: If any other admin wants to reblock for some other reason, for any duration, I do not object, and would not consider it wheel-waring whatsoever. Courcelles (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Allegations and baiting at ARE - and here

Regarding Eric Corbett once again being brought before ARE[4] and the statements that have been made about me:

@Sitush:[5]

• What a coincidence. I can't speak for Gobonobo, but for me, yes - a coincidence.
• Where have these people been for the last three weeks? I've mostly been working in my preferred subject areas, which you have started to get involved in.
• Eric has plenty of watchers. And plenty of enablers, who love to start discussions on his page that they ought not to,[6] and encourage him when he starts discussions there[7] that he'd be better off avoiding.

The question is, why did she reignite that thread?[8]

Sitush, I ended up on Eric's page because of your participation in a discussion at AN. Your first comment[9] wasn't bad, but it was followed by several[10][11][12] that showed you were getting over stimulated. (The last one showed you were willing to make an arbitrary call about any editor who agreed with an edit of mine, whether you knew who they were or not.) I've learned that when this happens, you might be talking about me on Eric's page - risky as it is for him. I went there, and lo! Eric himself had started a discussion about RfA and GGTF, ending with: "Now block/ban me, and see if I care."[13] So Eric can thank you, and he owes you thanks for leading me to his page more than once now.

That discussion that Eric nailed to his own talk page on Easter, did I respond to him? No - well not at first anyway. My comment was to two other editors.[14] Then, I asked Eric a simple question: What is your purpose when you start discussions like this?[15] Of course, you, Sitush - within the minute that I asked my question - then took the ball and ran with it. LB, are you hallucinating?[16] I wasn't baiting anyone; you were! Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@EChastain:[17] If the examples you gave of "baiting" are baiting, then I've been baited pretty much from the day I started actively editing here. They were certainly no more bait-like than Eric's posts,[18][19][20][21][22] including the one that he started the discussion with. (see next) Hell, one of the diffs you gave was of me fixing a typo![23]

Let's record Eric's opening salvo here. He titled it "Forbidden topics."[24]

I'm forbidden to comment on RfA or the GGTF, but nevertheless I want to sign off by commenting on both.

RfA is a vicious travesty that ought to have been stopped long ago.

The GGTF is also a travesty, fuelled by comments made by the terminally dim Sue Gardner, and which will cost the WMF lots of money in funding daft projects that will not make the slightest difference to anything.

Now block/ban me, and see if I care. Eric Corbett 20:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Karanacs:[25] I did NOT go to Eric's page to bait him. If you read the @Sitush section above, you will learn exactly why I went to Eric's page. So he made his comment three weeks ago? If he hadn't made it at all (afterall, he's not supposed to be doing things like that), neither his fans or I would have had a comment to make and Gobonobo wouldn't have come here to ARE. Lightbreather (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw:[26] As long as Eric and others use his talk page to talk about me or projects that I work on - one that he's banned from - I think that would be unfair. Lightbreather (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, Callanecc, Bishonen, and Ymblanter: Bishonen already knows this, but y'all are the ones who've responded at "Result concerning Eric Corbett" so far. Today, Eric came to my talk page to make these comments:

• Welcome to the club. Perhaps you might like to explain why you came to my talk page yesterday?[27]
• I'd be quite happy to "fuck off" Bishonen, if you'd be equally happy to tell Lightbreather to "fuck off" from my talk page.[28]
• Which you don't appear to have done.[29]

He's dared you to block him.[30] He's asking to be blocked.[31] He thinks this is a joke. He thinks I am. He thinks you are. He thinks civility is. And he is completely comfortable that he has enough fans to protect him from a long block or a ban. --Lightbreather (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding proposed IBAN/talk page ban

Callanecc, Ymblanter, and Zad68: I can accept these, but I'd like to have some conditions on the talk-page proposal. If Eric or others do talk about me - directly or indirectly - on his page, I should be able to respond. What do I mean by indirectly? Like someone writes a word - let's say "Voldemort" - but links it to my user page. (This diff shows that going the other way around,[32] but I could see some of them thinking it would be fun to come up with a code name for me. I might add, if I compared Eric to Voldemort, I guarantee I'd have at least one person, possibly even an admin, show up to tell me I was being uncivil, or baiting, or both.) Another example, talking about my IdeaLab (meta) proposal for a women-only space or the Kaffeeklatsch. (Example: Interesting also to notice that after all the palaver about a women-only space there is virtually no activity at the Kaffeeklatsch....[33] I'll also add, if I used the word "palaver" - especially about something Eric created - I guarantee I'd have at least one person, possibly even an admin, show up to tell me I was being uncivil, or baiting, or both.) Those places have talk pages, or they could take it to some other talk page where I'm not banned - and ping me, while they're at it. Lightbreather (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

How about just rounding it up to a full IBAN then? Zad68 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, Lightbreather, can you please list all your current interaction bans? I'd also appreciate a list of those you've requested, and the venues at which you requested them. Thanks in advance,  Roger Davies ^talk 18:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Assuming since you asked that I won't get sanctioned for mentioning editors by name. The only active, 2-way that I have is with Hell in a Bucket. Mike Searson has a 1-way with me. (I did not initiate it. It also included a topic-ban from gun control, but I don't know if that was recorded at ArbCom.) The only others I have ever asked for are Sue Rangell, who no longer edits under that username, and Scalhotrod. Lightbreather (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Both Sue and Scal hounded me, and both were warned by admins to knock it off. I will try to find diffs. Lightbreather (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The only diffs I'm interested in are the closing outcomes.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. The links to HIAB and MS are in the text above. As for Scal, I've tried multiple times to get him to quit harassing me. I think this was the last time: Request administrator to evaluate conduct of user. It included proposals for a 1-way ban (Scal from me) and a 2-way ban. No decision was made. Lightbreather (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Roger Davies, Lightbreather also asked for an IBAN between herself and Two Kinds of Pork, here on her talk page, when she thought you would be able to have that entered into the Arb results for the Gender Gap case. Karanacs (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd forgotten that. It would have been nice if you'd given the diff, so I didn't have to dig for it. Here's what I asked:

In fact, considering Two Kinds of Porks' repeated baiting,[34][35] casting aspersions,[36][37][38] and personal attack[39] here on my talk page, and considering that I've told him he's unwelcome here[40] and asked him outright to leave me alone[41][42] can we please include him, too? (Also, I don't appreciate TKOP calling Roger Davies a "Brownie.") Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[43]

Considering the evidence I provided, it doesn't seem frivolous. TKOP's role in that dispute was similar to Sitush's role to Eric's beef with me. Lightbreather (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Roger Davies, Lightbreather also asked for an IBAN between herself and Scalhotrod at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement in January but it was denied. [44] EChastain (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Like clockwork, here she shows up! Lightbreather (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, re my request for an iban with Scal in that incidence: To say it was "denied" kinda makes it sound like it was discussed, which it wasn't. It wasn't acknowledged - perhaps overlooked since the ARE was about another editor? I was advised to "make a separate enforcement request."[45] (The ARE under discussion was by another editor, about another editor.) Lightbreather (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × with EChastain. Why does this not surprise me?)Finally, as for Sue Rangell, I think the last IBAN proposal (initiated by admin TParis in Feb. 2014) ended with Sue and I agreeing to a voluntary ban, though she ultimately broke it.[46][47][48] In July 2014, I took her to ARE, which ended in her being warned to keep it on content, not contributor.[49][50] It is worth noting that she and Scal like to talk about me on their respective talk pages. Since Sue quit editing last August, Scal likes to go to Eric's page to make his comments. Also, two months after Sue quit editing, an editor named EChastain started. Her very first edit on Wikipedia was to an article that Sue Rangell knew (privately) that I had a strong personal connection to in real life. Within two weeks, she found her way to the GGTF ArbCom. She was the first person to show up here on my talk page when I was blocked last November. For this and other reasons (for which I've given evidence) TParis started an SPI on her.[51] I tried to revive it, and better present my evidence, after my block was over.[52] Much as Sue Rangell did, EChastain continues to look for opportunities to bait me and present "evidence" against me. There was no doubt in TParis' mind and there is none in mine that EChastain is a sock or meat puppet of Sue Rangell. Lightbreather (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, you were already under a gun control topic ban when you filed this request for discretionary sanctions:[53] EChastain (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Have I asked you before to stay off my talk page? Lightbreather (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As to your comment (you don't make clear your point):

In this case, the admin who imposed the topic ban exempted this request from the topic ban because it was made immediately prior to the imposition of the ban. The request may therefore be processed. On the merits, I see a higher-than-acceptable level of personal animosity in the edits by Sue Rangell in evidence, and I would warn Sue Rangell that she may be made subject to sanctions if she continues to focus on contributors rather than content in this manner. I do not think that sanctions beyond this warning are required now, if only, as a practical matter, because the mutual animosity isn't likely to flare up again soon now that Lightbreather has been topic-banned. Sandstein 15:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[54]

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Question

regarding the statement: " Sitush, I ended up on Eric's page because of your participation in a discussion at AN.". Why go to Eric's page? Why not address Sitush directly on their page? If it was indeed Sitush's "participation" which prompted you to respond - then if wished to speak outside of the AN discussion, then User talk:Sitush should have been your destination. — Ched :  ?  04:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The quote is the first sentence of a whole paragraph[55] about why I went to Eric's page. I have addressed Sitush directly on his page in the past and will in the future when appropriate. I think a good question to ask Sitush would be: Why did you go to Eric's page? I don't go there regularly to talk about him (Sitush), and in fact, didn't mention him in the comments I made there on Sunday. The fact is, Sitush has a bad habit of following me around and poking me. I've asked him more than once to stop, but here's one example: Please take your own good advice - and please leave me alone. (It's also an example of me starting a discussion on his talk page.) Lightbreather (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Just realized that discussion has one of Sitush's comments referring to me as an "elephant in the room." He's used that one before.[56] Lightbreather (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, if you were not already blocked, I would have blocked you for baiting on Eric's page. I encourage you use this forced respite from Wikipedia to truly examine your behavior, and how it incites or contributes to disruption. Your post above, giving justifications for your behavior by blaming everyone else, is highly disturbing.

• You were uncivil - accusing Sitush of being overstimulated (you commented on HIM rather than content of his accusations).
• You assumed bad faith - that Sitush would be speaking poorly about you in other areas of the encyclopedia.
• You wiki-stalked Sitush, assuming that he would be speaking poorly about you.
• You went to the page of an editor with whom you have had frequent negative interactions for the sole purpose of arguing with him or those posting on his talk page. I see no other interpretation.
• You then responded to three-week-old comments on the talk page of the editor with whom you have had frequent negative interactions and knowing that he would be unable to respond. You could have made those comments on the talk page of the editors with whom you disagreed. You could have refrained from making them - it is not necessary for you to defend the Kaffeeklatsch anywhere that it is mentioned. I consider this comment baiting.
• While responding to that the three-week-old comments, you were uncivil.
• You play the victim. Twice. First when referring to those marginalized on Wikipedia, and then expressing anger that Eric got sympathy posts when his cat died and you didn't when you broke your arm. This comment was completely unnecessary (and Sitush's was unnecessary as well). I consider this comment baiting.
• You again defend the Kaffeeklatsch. Eric's talk page is not the venue for doing so. He is not supposed to specifically comment on this, it is not the forum for making changes - you are not going to change the minds of anyone who posts regularly on that page - and it's in response to a throwaway observation from three weeks previously. No one had responded to your previous comment about the K, yet you continued on a rant. I consider this baiting.
• You continue posting on the topic after Eric tells you point-blank that he does not intend to discuss the GGTF. This is baiting.
• You are condescending in your next post ("discussions here - which is what we call these things with headers on talk pages - ") and lecture Eric on how he should be posting. I consider this baiting.

I do think that you were also baited by Sitush. That does not excuse your behavior and your attempts to bait Eric. Basically, you inserted yourself in a stale conversation on the talk page of someone with whom you do not agree in order to defend an initiative (that wasn't being attacked) that you knew Eric wasn't allowed to talk about. That is pretty much the definition of baiting. Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Karanacs, re civility: I've fought hard to improve it on Wikipedia, and I haven't completely given up, but the fact is I've been told over and over again it's really unimportant - well, at least if it's directed at me. For instance, when Eric Corbett called me a cunt,[57] everyone rallied to say "That's just Eric," and "He really didn't call you a cunt," and so on. Just yesterday (before my writing here that Sitush was becoming over stimulated), he asked me if I was hallucinating.[58] The guy who is currently 1-way i-banned with me had to hint at hitting me upside the head with a shovel to get banned. (Repeated insults weren't uncivil enough.) If I ever suggest that Sitush is a motherfucker or threaten to hit someone upside the head with a shovel, then let's talk about civility. That is, if you or anyone else are going to ding me for civility, then I'd appreciate an even application of the policy. (And a chance to weasel out of it, just as Eric did with "cunt" - which is arguably every bit as offensive as "motherfucker" to most of the English speaking world.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, I strongly encourage you to drop the defensiveness, stop wikilawyering, and actually look at what people have to tell you. The drama that seems to surround you could drop to a really small level if you made a few changes in your behavior. The only behavior that YOU can control is YOURS. Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• In January of this year, this exchange was on Eric's talk page:[59]

The strange thing is that I've collaborated with loads of female editors on articles, probably more females than males, yet not a single one has ever complained about the the way I've treated them or interacted with them. The only females who've complained about me are those I've never come across and I wouldn't know from Adam. Eric Corbett 18:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Eric Corbett, you and I had never interacted until July 2014 when this happened at WT:AN:

Lightbreather: ... Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make [civility] a unique noticeboard area?[60]

Eric Corbett: ... the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.[61]

When I complained about it, you started following me around to harass me whenever I talked about civility. So you see that although perhaps many women have had the pleasure of collaborating with you, I have not. That doesn't negate the fact that you've collaborated with women, or that I've collaborated with men, but please don't try to pass yourself off as a victim. You've done your share of being uncivil, and that's a fact. Lightbreather (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

He deleted[62] my reply to his defensive poor-me statement so as to maintain his "victim" image, despite his crowing about transparency on his talk page.[63]

He is as defensive as they come. Nonetheless, he can control his behavior just as well as you or I, but he's rarely asked to do so. And when he is asked, officially, he's rarely made to do so. Please don't push Eric's problems - which pre-date my actively editing Wikipedia - onto me. Lightbreather (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• As for assuming bad faith and wiki-stalking, I might agree if Sitush (and others) never stalked and spoke poorly of me in various forums across Wikipedia. But I could give you many diffs of when he has done so, which comes back around to poking and baiting. If some, like say Eric, are allowed to be offended, and encouraged to complain, about being poked and baited (or at least what they think is poking and baiting), then others ought to get the same pass. Lightbreather (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• You went to the page of an editor with whom you have had frequent negative interactions for the sole purpose of arguing with him or those posting on his talk page. No, I did not. Which is more than misinterpretation: it's assuming bad faith since I explicitly stated why I went to his page. Lightbreather (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• You then responded to three-week-old comments on the talk page of the editor with whom you have had frequent negative interactions and knowing that he would be unable to respond. This is also ABF. There are dozens of questions I could have asked to which he could not have responded. For instance:

Why can't you talk about RfA?

Why are you [anything] about GGTF?

What place do you think editor gender plays in Wikipedia content?

The things I asked him required no reason to discuss RfA or GGTF. He might say, "I do it out of protest," or "To give my friends and foes something to discuss here on my talk page." Or he could have taken it as a rhetorical - he poses them often enough himself - and not replied at all. My asking him the question that I asked was no more baiting than his starting the discussion the way that he did. Lightbreather (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't "play" the victim. I AM a victim, though I don't go around saying such. I mostly try to go about my business, editing my preferred subjects, and occasionally getting baited, harassed, stalked, or talked about. Sometimes I ignore it, sometimes I don't. Lightbreather (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• This is trying to turn a bad decision on Eric's part (and his friends) into a problem about me. The fact is, Eric should have never started the discussion that he started, and his friends (if they truly are his friends) should never respond publicly in-kind when he starts up his let's-all-talk-about-how-wronged-I-am threads.

• I am just the latest in the long line of poor saps who won't roll over and give Eric and his friends special treatment, and who therefore receive "special" treatment from them. Lightbreather (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't ask Eric to discuss GGTF, nor did we discuss GGTF. (I talked about it with three other editors who were part of the discussion.) I told Eric:

So you have a beef with Wikipedia and Jimmy Wales and I don't know who-all else that pre-dates my knowledge of your existence. You could do a lot to help restore peace to this community by not starting such discussions.[64]

And I believe that. Then he wanted to tell how much braver and stoic (more of a man) he was about his elbow injury than I was "fussing" about mine. The fact is, I hadn't brought up my elbow: Sitush had, and this time Eric took the ball and ran with it. It's teamwork. Eric and Sitush were baiting me. Lightbreather (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• Condescending? Eric is perhaps the most condescending editor on Wikipedia. Remember the "Were you standing behind the door when they were handing out brains"[65] comment? Once again, if we're going to enforce policies, let's be consistent about it. Lightbreather (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri, when I go to questia.com, it says my membership is cancelled. Can you reactivate it? Lightbreather (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban between yourself and Eric Corbett

Lightbreather, per the result of the discussion here at WP:AE, you and User:Eric Corbett are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other, broadly construed, per WP:IBAN. Although this discussion was held at WP:AE this is to be considered a Community sanction and any clarification requests or appeals should be made at WP:AN. Struck to replace with: This is a Discretionary Sanction that is an Arbitration Enforcement action under The GGTF decision as amended February 2015. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Zad68 01:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, note that I amended the close to be an AE action as opposed to a Community Sanction. Zad68 01:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Zad68, for the notice, and since I am currently restricted to my own page, may I ask a question about my other IBAN. That is, would this be an "appropriate forum" for "addressing a legitimate concern about [that] ban itself"? Would an email be better? Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, you're welcome to email me and I'll give you my level opinion, but it'll only be my opinion as I have no particular expertise or experience in evaluating IBANs. Zad68 01:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Email

I received your email. I am within policy but I always welcome additional opinions. That is all I intend to say about that. Karanacs (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban

In accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorised at WP:ARBGGTF, you are hereby prohibited from addressing, referring to, commenting on, or otherwise interacting with Sitush, whether or not by name. Violation of this restriction will result in blocks. You may appeal this restriction in accordance with the appeals procedure. This restriction is in place indefinitely. You have the standard exemption to seek enforcement against Sitush should you feel that he has misconducted himself towards you, though it would be wise to seek advice privately from an admin you trust first. The immediate reason for this sanction is your conduct towards Sitush in a recent AN thread, and the broader reason the long history of animosity between the two of you. Since Courcelles states that he has no objection to such, I considered re-blocking you but decided that it would be more punitive than preventative, and so imposed this in lieu of a re-block. I second Courcelles' sage advice to spend your Wikipedia time in the mainspace and not on the drama and internal politics where you seem to run into problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)