Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:40, 27 April 2015

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

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)

Talk:Nazi gun control theory

I have just asked you to let me voice my own opinions on the subject of the article - which clearly does not amount to a request for you to trawl through my previous posts and copy them there. So unless it is actually your intention to get into an argument with everyone on the talk page, I'd ask that you remove your latest post, and stop trying to tell people what I think. Not only is it bad manners (particularly after I'd made an explicit request not to do it), but it is counterproductive, since it looks very much like an attempt to turn the whole thing into an us-vs-them faction-fight, rather than a discussion of how Misplaced Pages policy relates to the issue. Your suggestion of an RfC was misguided in my opinion, and you might do better to simply let the discussion evolve, rather than trying to corral everyone into an entirely inappropriate vote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Civility in the Talk:Nazi gun control theory

The discussion should remain civil. I would appreciate it if you would stop using the term "Godsy-preffered", because it conveys that you know what I'd prefer (which you do not) AND incorrectly conveys my actual positions or speculates to what they might be. I do not advocate a personal view, I advocate policy (they may not necessarily line up), so to use the phrase it in that manner is inaccurate. —Godsy_CONT) 20:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

So if we don't go back to your preferred version in your preferred way, you believe it will be detrimental to the discussion. That's not quite how it works here, but thanks for the input. trying to illustrate a point, not intentionally being sarcastic or claiming to know what you believe/think 01:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC), Godsy

Your "preferred" comment preceded mine by 18 hours. I think you should cool down and go read some of the past material about this Nazi-gun-control debate on Misplaced Pages.

Please stay off my page for now, unless you come to give notice of starting a formal process. Lightbreather (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

AN notice

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion Chess started: indef gun control ban for User:Lightbreather

Yet more insinuations of sockpuppetry

I see that you have yet again ignored my advice, and the comments in the thread regarding your behaviour at WP:AN, and have continued to make unsubstantiated accusations of sockpuppetry at Talk:Nazi gun control theory. Consider this fair warning - if you persist with this, I may very well change my position regarding the proposal that you be topic banned. You are achieving precisely nothing beyond antagonising people. Either file a SPI, or let the matter drop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 20 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 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 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 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) " 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 (despite numerous explanations, private and public - such as this one (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).

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

Request reason:

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.

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=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. ] (]) 19:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |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=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. ] (]) 19:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |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=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. ] (]) 19:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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 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 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)

• Requests for unblock