User talk:Lightbreather

Retiring?

I don't like to see anyone retire from the 'pedia. Please reconsider. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, don't want to see you go; leaves progressive people trying to change things with fewer allies, though this is typical - progressives in general tend to not like fighting, when they do, they pick the wrong target, it boomerangs, and so they quit. (Frustrates me a great deal) Nonetheless, I hope you do not view me as one of the "women with my head in the sand"; I just know what works here and what does not, who to go into battle against and who is not worth the bother. By my view, WP is full of drama queens of all genders, and no more uncivil than some of the old right-wing boards I used to engage on in the old days of bbs systems, before online chat. The online world has always been harsher and less civil than the real world. But IMHO, WP is less uncivil than some online arguments I've gotten into the gun nuts and the right to life crowd. Doesn't mean it should be this way, but we ARE dealing with a base of predominantly as the Guardian puts it, "what you get in Wikimedia is the world according to the young white western male with a slight personality defect." Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I have my head in the sand too, but that's also because my butt looks so great. Don't go, Lightbreather. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have decided to leave. I think the only way that Wikipedia can be more welcoming and diverse is if we help it along by our very presence and action. It's really amazing how one person can change the world. For example, if you decided to stay here and be welcoming and encourage diversity, you could be the change you desire. If you don't believe me, try this experiment where you live: decide on a certain day when you wake up, that you will smile at everyone you see and meet, whenever you are. That means smiling at people on the street, smiling at people at work, and smiling at cashiers and other service people you encounter. Try it and, and see what happens. And then consider whether you might still have an impact on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

GOCE October 2014 newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors October 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights: Results of the August Blitz and September Drive A few changes around the Guild's pages Sign up for the October Blitz Review the Coordinators election results – Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I just want to say...

• Quitting a website over other people is a really dumb move in my opinion. For every idiot out there you will come across someone who is supportive and helpful. I know my words will prob have little meaning and I know you don't know me at all but I really wish you would just stay here at Wikipedia as there are people who value you here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• You will be missed. Your farewell message above reflects underestimation of your accomplishments. I am not a Christian, but I appreciate the strength, wisdom, and humanity of those able to turn the other cheek. Thewellman (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

For your contributions on behalf of Gender Gap

		Mind the Gap Award
		For your contributions to the Gender Gap Task Force. Even though you are "missing in action" in the line of duty, your contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated. May there always be new editors who will pick up where you left off, and continue to make Wikipedia the kind of place your granddaughters can be proud of. —Neotarf (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Feminists Engage Wikipedia

	The Feminists Engage Wikipedia Award!
	If Adrienne Wadewitz were here, she'd give you an award for all you have done! Djembayz (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for 2014 Jefferson County Public Schools protests

 — Yngvadottir (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

A kitten for you!

Just because...

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

revert

The revert of your comments on the ArbCom page was accidental. I was viewing the diff of the newest comments and accidentally bumped the revert button. I have self reverted. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

GGTF case talk page: hatting

Carolmooredc, please ignore this. Lightbreather (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not continue to post to a section after it has been hatted. I have reverted the extra comments you made. Please do not restore them.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion was not hatted when I started my last comment. Please see my comment there. I hope that you or another editor will restore it. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

To anyone who tries to understand this. The discussion was this Gang Bangers, and the comment Roger removed was:

As for the "Carol is American" BS, I'm a Yank, too, and I can tell you the two meanings I know for "gang bang" and "gang banger." The first goes way back, as I've seen depicted in many movies. A "gang bang" is a girl/woman being fucked one at a time (consensually or not) by a group of boys/men lined up nearby. "Gang banger," I learned, is a street gang member, which my oldest son told me when he was in high school. When I first heard the term I was confused, because I'd only ever heard the other term, with its purely sexual meaning. I don't know what Carol meant, but I can tell you that there are at least these two meanings here in the U.S.

Regardless, it's obvious that she's burnt out. So I'll tell her now what several editors rushed to tell Eric when he did the same thing and called Jimbo Wales a "dishonest cunt of the highest order" - after this case was opened.[1] Carolmooredc: Unless an arbitrator asks you a direct question related to this case, hush! There might be hope for you yet, just as Eric received an early Christmas present four days ago with Proposal 2.3. Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If this comment is restored to that discussion, I will delete this discussion.

Carolmooredc, please ignore this. Lightbreather (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I considered your request, and I understand your annoyance at Roger Davies's revert. However the utility of having a comment in a hatted section is minimal, especially given that Carol has been banned from that talk page anyway. I suggest you remove your request, before someone with my sense of justice, but a little more impetuous follows it and gets their knuckles rapped. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC).

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Per Defending yourself against claims (linked to in notice above), I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. Lightbreather (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in this day and age there are so many guys who don't like GGTF-type efforts who know how to fake the appearance of coming from an IP in a specific locality, not to mention fake a similar writing pattern. I've seen cases with much clearer evidence rejected. Just more dubious stuff going on... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Block notice

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Per this reason, which I found after following and reading the dozens of links one encounters when reading the guide to appealing blocks.

Decline reason:

I don't see anything there which justifies your abuse of multiple accounts; perhaps you might clarify in a future request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

If there are privacy concerns that administrators may not be aware of, that's fine, but as such the unblock request will need to be evaluated by a functionary who can review the material in question. It should be noted that I consulted with GorillaWarfare yesterday before I posted my findings. She informed me that she was unaware of any privacy concerns through the functionary or arbitration avenues that would discourage me from posting the behavioral evidence. Mike V • Talk 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. GW may very well be unaware, since I have not been able to share my concerns explicitly and privately with her. Clerk @Rschen7754: is aware of who I have reached out to. Could you consult privately with him and see if one of those people is able to reply to the pleas that I sent? Lightbreather (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Question

@Mike V:, am I allowed to post here on my talk page? Lightbreather (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, linked in the block notice about, which will answer this and other questions you may have. I do so wish you'd taken my advice given when you posted on my talk.[2] EChastain (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Other question

A question for @Gaijin42, Lord Roem, Newyorkbrad, StarryGrandma, and TParis:

Considering EChastain's:

• Account activity was opened on October 13, 2014[3] (the day after I announced that I was quitting[4]);
• Declared background in psychology;[5]
• Early interest in the GGTF ArbCom (a case in which I presented evidence);
• Editing Robert Spitzer (one[6] of nine consecutive edits) 11 days into her WP history;
• Comments at the GGTF ArbCom talk pages directed at me; ("massive freaking out"),[7] ("massively disruptive")[8]
• Comments ("push a POV") and style/choice of words ("drop in the ocean") on her talk page;[9]
• Timing and style of her recent comments/edits on my talk page[10][11][12][13][14] (She had never before edited my talk page);

Who do you think she might be (edited as previously)? (I have one other bit of behavior/evidence that I can add, but I will only share it privately with LR, NYB, or TP, so as not to "out" myself.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That's actually pretty convincing. Looking at the first 15 of EChastain's contribs, they appear to have specifically been aimed at achieving autoconfirmed status so they could edit the semi-protected GGTF Arbcom case page. I think that's strong enough evidence for a checkuser.--v/r - TP 19:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

EChastain was definitely the harasser who got me most upset at Arbitration talk. Open an SPI and I might be energized to provide evidence of who it might be of several past or existing editors who come to mind. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

As many at this site know, I routinely catch WP:Sockpuppets. I noticed EChastain at the Gang bang article. Soon after I did, I looked through EChastain's editing history, including the very first edit by the EChastain account; after doing so, I was convinced that EChastain is not new to editing Wikipedia. I'm still convinced. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I seem to remember a complaint about discussing other editors on a talkpage without notifying them..Lightbreather I'm sure you remember User:Scalhotrod and the complaints you made over his discussion on his talkpage, to that end I have notified User:EChastain of this thread. I hope you are wrong in your findings but the timeline presented would probably warrant a test if a proper master can be located. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think I can do anything about it. I'm scared just to be editing my own talk page. (EChastain suggested I could only use my talk page to appeal my block.[15]) Will someone else start a checkuser? Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That would be a violation of WP:EVADE but if you have a master editor chosen with evidence I will start it. It's not fair if other people are allowed to continue socking and you raise a very valid point about the editing history that can't easily be explained away.. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I've started a case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sue_Rangell.--v/r - TP 20:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that it was declined almost immediately as "Stale," whatever the heck that means! The harassment isn't "stale"! At any rate, TP, I have shared some personal information about myself that is relevant to this and I am giving you permission to share that with an SPI functionary, if it will help. Lightbreather (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Stale means the technical data is too old to be useful. Sue hasn't edited recently enough for a conclusive match to be made. Regardless, I think a case on behavioral evidence can be made without divulging your personal information.--v/r - TP 21:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to fear editing your user page. And the tell-tale signs that EChastain is not new to editing Wikipedia are clear, to very experienced Wikipedia editors at least. Another example of EChastain's not-newness is the fact that EChastain created the EChastain user page (timestamped 16:23, 18 October 2014‎) soon after creating the EChastain account, for reasons that non-new Wikipedia editors do so. In other words, a blue-linked user page is a very powerful psychological Wikipedia tool. If someone wants to make the Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet argument, which is usually a poor argument, then whatever. If WP:CheckUsers decline to use the WP:CheckUser software to investigate EChastain because of their "we don't fish" vow, then that's too bad. There is credible evidence to suspect EChastain of WP:Sockpuppetry. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis WP:Cleanstart doesn't actually prohibit returning to older edit areas it suggests it isn't smart to do so because the link will be made. A couple questions are we saying this person quit in august to start editing again as a sock just for the arbcom case? On what basis or threshold would we look at as evasion of scrutiny just to participate in this case? I'm asking because of the differences in blocks here and how they are related policy wise? The evidence is actually there to at least say it's not a new editor and the evidence can be suggestive that it is indeed Sue Rangel but I'm curious was she evading sanctions? Has she commented with both accounts in some way with this dispute? I note they haven't denied it yet either so maybe it's a cleanstart account that is caught and no idea how to proceed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Flyer, the SPI says no CU because the evidence is stale. I'm sure you don't want to call User:Rschen7754 a liar; no one has said that CU was declined because it is a fishing operation. It's clear that this case should be decided on behavioral evidence: you know, or should know, that this happens all the time.

Lightbreather, I'm disappointed to see you blocked for this reason, and even more disappointed to realize--just now--that this was you. Using "privacy" as an argument for this kind of edit is completely lame and I have no respect for it. I reverted that one edit, but could have reverted more: it is clear that this was some unwise, petty, vengeful crusade. And to find out that it was you? Bleh. Someone suggested privately it was you and I said no way; I suppose I should apologize to that person. I have stood up for you and stuck out my neck for you more than once, and I believe you are intelligent enough to imagine what this feels like. But then, what does that matter, right, in this quest for the greater good of having this one guy blocked. Also, if there is an MfD for that sandbox of yours, I will support deletion, since the insinuations there are a bit revolting. But that's all by the by and I have very little interest in discussing anything else with you anymore, though I do want to ask you one probably rhetorical question: do you really think that getting Eric and maybe Sitush banned will mean anything at all for Wikipedia's gender problems? Drmies (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

IP addresses that have commented on the GGTF ArbCom talk pages - plus one that has been banned for disruption

Since some editors have expressed such concern about whether or not the legitimate use (say, perhaps, for privacy) of an IP address is overridden by inappropriate uses (take your pick), especially in an ArbCom case, here are some IP addresses that have commented on the GGTF ArbCom talk pages that, for some reason, have not been "scrutinized."

1. 122.177.11.190 (talk) Geolocates to Delhi, India.
2. 12.249.243.118 (talk) Geolocates to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
3. 204.101.237.139 (talk) Gelocates to Ontario.
4. 2.125.151.139 (talk) Geolocates to Rochdale, UK (Greater Manchester)
5. 67.255.123.1 (talk) Geolocates to Vestal, New York.
6. 90.213.181.169 (talk) Geolocates to Rochdale, UK (Greater Manchester)
7. 94.54.249.249 (talk) Geolocates to Istanbul.
8. 71.11.1.204 (talk) Geolocates to Stamford, Connecticut.

The following IP editor found the above information so disturbing that he/she kept deleting it from my sandbox! (He/she has been banned for disruption.[16])

1. 91.232.124.60 (talk) Geolocates to United Kingdom (Manchester ISP M247 Ltd).

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)