Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gaijin42 (talk | contribs) at 02:41, 3 December 2014 (→Other question: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Viriditas (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

GOCE October 2014 newsletter

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages are appreciated. May there always be new editors who will pick up where you left off, and continue to make Misplaced Pages the kind of place your granddaughters can be proud of. —Neotarf (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Feminists Engage Misplaced Pages

	The Feminists Engage Misplaced Pages 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

On 11 November 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2014 Jefferson County Public Schools protests, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that hundreds of Colorado high school students are currently protesting a proposed curriculum change? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — 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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages: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 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. 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 Misplaced Pages account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 08:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

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 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.

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=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)

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=About the block added last night. I swear the actions of IP address 69.16... were not mine. We do not use the ISP Highlands Network Group and I've never heard of Mudhook Marketing. I DO NOT LIVE IN PHOENIX. Since my block, any editing I've done has been here in my own user space. |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=About the block added last night. I swear the actions of IP address 69.16... were not mine. We do not use the ISP Highlands Network Group and I've never heard of Mudhook Marketing. I DO NOT LIVE IN PHOENIX. Since my block, any editing I've done has been here in my own user space. |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=About the block added last night. I swear the actions of IP address 69.16... were not mine. We do not use the ISP Highlands Network Group and I've never heard of Mudhook Marketing. I DO NOT LIVE IN PHOENIX. Since my block, any editing I've done has been here in my own user space. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Lightbreather (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Salvio replied to my question regarding the block extension he placed. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano&diff=636148503&oldid=636122559 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I saw that, but I'd still like another admin to consider my appeal. Of course I'd like personal info revdeled - and I've got outstanding Requests for that - but I wouldn't just try to delete it. That would be stupid, and it (simple deletion of a couple paragraphs) wouldn't do much to address my underlying concern/request. Lightbreather (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The info you want revdeled, is it the info in the diff I posted above that was used to extend your block? I'm not sure that is rev-del worthy, as it is just referring to information that you posted on wiki, but in any case you could request revdel directly from oversight by emailing oversight-en-wp@wikipedia.org with the specific info you think should be removed. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin and TParis: can you please at least undo the block extension while I'm waiting to here from someone privately about the first block. This was not me. I don't live in Phoenix, and I was out to dinner with my husband when that happened. @Salvio giuliano: I've done some stupid things in my life, but I wouldn't do anything that stupid. Please help. Lightbreather (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am quite sorry, but as I said on my talk page, applying Occam's razor, my conclusion is that the IP was operated by you. Of course, I accept review of my actions and, so, if another administrator wants to revert my block extension, they can do so. Concerning your request for revdeletion, I can only say that it's being discussed on the dedicated mailing list and you should receive a response soon. Salvio 00:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Block questions

Can @Salvio giuliano: or some other functionary explain this to me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALightbreather

--Lightbreather (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit from a Phoenix IP, removing information about you. Presumed to be block evasion. I have posted a message to Salvio with some thoughts. User_talk:Salvio_giuliano#Lightbreather_block_evasion Gaijin42 (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

On my mother's ashes, it wasn't me. Also, could someone please revdel the location info? Lightbreather (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, @GorillaWarfare, Newyorkbrad, and Worm That Turned: could you please block Hell in a Bucket for a bit, or ban him from the GGTF ArbCom pages? And maybe PROTECT those pages? Lightbreather (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And is this kosher? Especially while I'm blocked? Lightbreather (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

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

Read Misplaced Pages: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. EChastain (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Other question

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

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

8. Insisting that other editors not post on her talk page (Details below);
9. Use of "sigh" in edit summaries (Evidence below);
10. Accusations of ownership (Will add evidence below).

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)

Details, per request of EC2 (as opposed to EC which is used often for Eric Corbett).

2. EChastain's declared background in psychology;

• The first version of Sue Rangell's user page said, "she specializes in the fields of educational psychology and educational technology." (emphasis mine)

4. EChastain's editing Robert Spitzer (one of nine consecutive edits) 11 days into her WP history.

• On January 12, 2014, Sue Rangell followed me to Robert Spitzer (political scientist) within an hour of my first edit there and proceeded to battle with me, the BLP subject, and other editors over the article for five days. After, she went on a mission to remove source citations to Spitzer in numerous articles, and returned to his article on July 31 to label him in the same way she was pushing in January.
• Eleven days into her WP editing career, EChastain edited Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist). In light of the topic of one of her first 12 edits strongly suggests this is more than a coincidence. (Again, if whomever is conducting the SPI contacts me privately, I will give more details - but I cannot do do here.)
• On January 25, 2014, during the long Robert Spitzer (political scientist) dispute, Sue Rangell moved all but the first sentence of Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist) lead into a new first section titled "New York City."
• When EChastain edited Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist), her first four edits were to the lead and the "New York City" section.

6. Is related to this comment by EChastain at the GGTF ArbCom: "I think most editors posting here or on GGTF are 'a good person' (e.g.Lightbreather). But that doesn't mean they can't be massively disruptive on wikipedia, or that they have the competence required."

• I felt that including my name in the statement looked like she considered me "massively disruptive" or incompetent. (I mean, would her comment have lost any meaning if she'd left out the parenthetical? Why include my name?) So I asked her privately if she would refactor the comment, which she would not do. In the discussion - on her talk page, Request, please - she gave her explanation using language that was very typical of Sue Rangell when she wasn't being openly accusatory, and added " the remarks of others too personally," and POV pushing to the list of things that she did "not" say about me. (POV pushing, especially "civil POV pushing," was one of Sue Rangell's repeated allegations against me, rarely with evidence. Also, Sue Rangle was prone to exaggeration. It wasn't enough to say someone was disruptive; they would be characterized as things like "massively" disruptive.) Examples of Sue Rangell style (CAPS), tone, exaggerating, "not" saying things.

7. EChastain's timing and style in her recent comments here on my talk page.

• I was notified by an admin of my block at 08:26, 30 November 2014. I pinged the notifying admin, asking a question. The first person to "respond," 90 minutes later, was editor EChastain, with a link to the Guide to appealing blocks (which was already in the notice, so it was offering nothing new in the way of helpful information, or the answer to my specific question (that I could see, anyway). And she ended with the comment, "I do so wish you'd taken my advice given when you posted on my talk."
• Soon after, she added a snarky opening comment, plus a "suggestion" that I read the Five pillars!
• Six minutes later she added "Please, please" to the beginning of the sentence that told me what I should read, plus a warning.
• Five minutes later, she deleted what she'd just added.
• In the next minute, she deleted the snarky opening like she'd added 12 minutes earlier.

8. One of Sue Rangell's earliest and most emphatic requests of me was that I not post on her talk page.

• Note EChastain insisting that another editor not post on her talk page.

9. Both Sue Rangell and EChastain use "sigh" in edit summaries. (Yes, other editors insert this into comments, but not many that I've encountered.)

@Gaijin42: I see that you copied some of my responses to EChastain's request for more detail about the observations I made originally. However, I have since updated this "Detail, per request" section. Of course, I am stuck here on my talk page, but if it doesn't break any rules, could you copy the updated observations to the SPI page? Oh! And Sue Rangell's AE Warning, if permitted and it isn't already there. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have copied the statements, but not the AE, as it is not relevant to an SPI imo. I really suggest you stop now, as the marginal return on additional statements is low, and you run higher risk of being seen as casting WP:ASPERSIONS or being disruptive, especially as this may be seen as a case of not dropping the WP:STICK from the arbcom case itself. I was tempted not to copy parts of your statement above, because some of them are essentially "both users said things about me I don't like" which is pretty weak as evidence. The Spitzer thing was what tripped my trigger initially, but being a completely different Spitzer turns it into an odd coincidence rather than evidence to me. In any case, I repeat my suggestion to let it go, either people are convinced she is a WP:DUCK or not at this point. For you, either go back into retirement or sit out your block, return and try to move on. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by others

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 Misplaced Pages. 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.) 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages are clear, to very experienced Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages editors do so. In other words, a blue-linked user page is a very powerful psychological Misplaced Pages tool. If someone wants to make the Misplaced Pages: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)

Hell in a Bucket (and others), please see the AE Warning on Sue Rangell's talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit of a stretch to say she was evading sanctions but it could be I'm not totally familiar with that background. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

In its lead, for reasons that it notes, WP:Clean start currently prohibits that a returning editor with a new account returns to the same editing space. It's looser with that language lower on the page, but it should be consistent with it; and I mean consistent with the "don't return to the same area" aspect, unless, of course, the problematic behavior, if there was any, has truly improved and it is valid for that editor to return to the same editing area that he or she edited before. WP:Clean start is clear that the clean start is supposed to be an actual clean start. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Your behavioral evidence is certainly suggestive/persuasive, but as others have said the CU data on Sue is stale. In any case, CU is unfortunately quite limited in reality, and only catches fairly naive socks. Anyone with technical skill or who wants to keep their master around can fairly easily evade it. Your evidence may be enough for a WP:DUCK block the same as the one that caught you. As for the other IPs, while its a fair assumption that they are also logged out users, their comments are not as (frequent? extensive?) as the ip linked to you and there isn't an obvious "master" based on location (except the two in the UK perhaps). As for what you are allowed to post while blocked, I think you are getting fairly deep into the grey area here, and I have seen others lose talk page access for similar posts, so I would perhaps recommend backing down, especially if you want to try to appeal your block, or if you are named as a party to the case (which seems unlikely at this point) and want to ask for any evidence/testimony to be copied to that page . As I learned from my own ArbCom experience (through my own mistakes), it seems best to focus on one's own behavior and WP:NOTTHEM. One place to start I think would be an explicit admission or denial of using that IP. You previously said "did not abuse multiple accounts" etc, which sounds like equivocating and that you could be the IP but think it wasn't violating policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Various prolific, non-naive WP:Sockpuppet masters have been caught by WP:CheckUsers, including in cases where the WP:CheckUser kept account/computer information on them past the time frame that would be considered stale, and I have seen some WP:CheckUsers that are better with the WP:CheckUser tool than others. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Some more questions

S.O.S.

Ok, this is getting very stressful.

I have asked to have some personal info about me here on WP revdeled. I have asked privately and publicly. It still has not happened.

MUST A GIVE EVIDENCE OF THREATS OF BODILY HARM TO GET ACTION ON THIS REQUEST?

Should I go to the WMF?

Will someone please take my concern seriously and advise me on who I can contact to get this taken care of immediately?

I am pinging a boatload of admin types here in hopes that someone will actually help me instead of dismiss me.

I would prefer to discuss this with a single functionary who can make a decision, but I'd be happy to share with two or three, if necessary... and privately.

@Jimbo Wales, LilaTretikov (WMF), GorillaWarfare, Newyorkbrad, Worm That Turned, SlimVirgin, and TParis: @Materialscientist and Rschen7754:

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you email oversight? Gaijin42 (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes! They told me they could take no action, and to take it up with a clerk. I have emailed four separate admins, and I asked the clerk to ask one of them to contact me privately. Nada! Lightbreather (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have received threats of harm, send it to emergencywikimedia.org.--v/r - TP 16:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not received recent threats of harm, but recent events here remind me of events leading up to past threats, which I cannot go into detail here. IS THERE NO-ONE PERSON OR SMALL TEAM (OF 2 OR 3) WHO CAN CONTACT ME PRIVATELY TO HEAR ME?

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oversight are the small team. If they can't help, your next steps would be to contact the WMF.--v/r - TP 19:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, TP. I have contacted oversight again, and copied the drafting arbitrators of the GGTF ArbCom case. I have reiterated my request and given them lots of evidence (private). I hope this is taken care of today, and maybe I won't have to take a sleeping pill tonight. Lightbreather (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather. Looking into the situation afresh (I've been away for a few days), I believe the functionaries have handled this correctly per their procedures. If you believe that additional information needs to be suppressed, perhaps discussing the matter with the WMF would not be a bad idea. Worm(talk) 11:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempted outing

Without confirming or denying the accuracy of the information, I would like to charge @Hell in a Bucket: with attempted WP:OUTING of my home or work location in relation to his speculating about my use of an alternate account. As I am still waiting to hear from someone privately regarding my block, how do I go about starting this process?

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the process would be to write a post here and use the {{helpme}} or {{adminhelp}} templates to ask for it to be copied to ANI. This may get declined, as since you are currently blocked, and this is an appeal of your block or anything, some may think it is out of process.

Also, without any comment about the merit of your particular issue, I think people may be weary of the drama related to the case, and also wary of the newly placed Discretionary Sanctions in the area. I fear you may get thought of in a tit-for-tat scenario, especially when it may appear you are doing it in response to your own block, and pinged numerous arbs and admins and not gotten anywhere. But in any case, that is what you would do to try.Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't seem to get anyone to understand how scared I am, and your reply doesn't help. Sorry. I'm not saying you're trying to scare me, but I don't feel encouraged. I have sent an emergency email to Wikimedia, as TP suggested earlier. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin and TParis: if nothing is going to happen with this, is there a way to just close out my account and delete everything associated with it? Lightbreather (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You may not currently qualify for WP:VANISH since you have a block active. Perhaps after your block expires though. You could also ask for your user page, but all of your various contribs in the rest of wiki would remain. (If you are allowed to vanish, they would get renamed, but your signature lines in various talk pages would remain) Per vanish, you can ask for your user talk to be deleted, but such is the exception and not the rule. Also per vanish, due to licensing issues, it is not possible to actually delete an account. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As you have attempted to tie my user name to a location all this seems somewhat, I can't decide what word to use here but you get the gist. J3Mrs (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey

When your block is up why not just focus on editing articles for a bit, you need to get this huge spotlight off of you and yourself out of the middle of the road so to speak. I am not saying to give up on your opinions but right now try to focus on content. Would you like to join a wikiproject or two and help out? I know there are a-lot of anime and manga articles that need work done if you are interested. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Anime and manga? Someone else once mentioned these might be subjects that interest me, though I don't know why.

At any rate, this is important to my peace of mind, and if it can't be corrected, then I'd just as soon wipe out any record that I've ever contributed here if it would mean revdeling Hell in a Bucket's and others' public speculation about where I live. I have been the victim of virtual and real-life harassment and anything else is just asking me to work in an environment that makes me open to further harassment. Lightbreather (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well if you have no interest in the area that is fine but you really need to stop making waves, you right now are splashing in the water trying to stay afloat when a lifeboat is right in front of you of keeping calm and addressing your problems later. You aren't fixing things from what I am seeing but only making them worse. I say these things because I don't want to see another editor go over something that can be helped. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

User page

Re your requests above, do you want your userpage User:Lightbreather deleted? NE Ent 23:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't decided yet. I'm still reading about my options. The last one I read was WP:UP#DELETE. What I'd really like is a revdel of personal information - which I don't want to discuss publicly. It's like a frikking catch-22. Lightbreather (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Administrator help needed Ask your question below. If the issue requires immediate attention or input from many administrators, please go to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents instead. If you want to edit a fully protected page, please use the edit request wizard or {{edit fully-protected}} instead. If you want an administrator to move a page, please go to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves/Technical requests. If the page needs repair from cut-and-paste moves, please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for history merge. If other users can help, please use the template {{help me}} instead. Misplaced Pages's Live Help IRC is notified when this template is used. Alternatively, you can join the IRC channel directly. When help has been offered, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

Actually, I have two related questions. The first is the more straightforward of the two.

• I asked to have my block extension reviewed because that IP action on the GGTF ArbCom page was not me. Plain and simple. The request is above, dated 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC), along with a comment from the admin who extended the block, who says he accepts review of his actions. (Per Blocking policy#Other important information).

• The day before that, two days ago now, I begged to have the original block reviewed privately because there are things I cannot share without potentially outing myself. Can this, as Mike V suggested, be evaluated by a functionary who can review the material in question (privately)?

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock
• Wikipedians looking for help from administrators