User talk:Lightbreather - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lightbreather (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 14 December 2014 (→Casting aspersions: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:45, 14 December 2014 by Lightbreather (talk | contribs) (→Casting aspersions: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

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)

Block notice

TEMPORARY collapse to focus on yet active block EXTENSION appeal that is a separate issue/IP from the original block.

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)

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 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:

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. Lightbreather (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: this one-week block has expired, though the extension remains and is the subject of a second unblock request (below). The on-wiki evidence for this request doesn't support an unblock. I understand you may also have emailed evidence to a functionary, but as they haven't responded here the request for review can only be considered on what we have. Euryalus (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

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)

Request to remove 1-week unblock extension

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

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

You must think we have never seen someone sock puppet before or that we are thick. The diffs presented at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather/Archive by the IP and you are clearly the same person. You exhibit identical personalities and focus on the same things and even the same spelling lessons.

Using multiple accounts to push a point of view in contentious areas is a serious problem here. I am surprised you got such a short block, you can consider yourself to have gotten off easy.

We have heard about proxies before so using an IP out of state does not fool anyone. Chillum 17:41, 8 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)

Reply to Chillum re extension unblock decline

@Chillum: two IP addresses were looked at re this SPI. The first was mine, which I used about 36 times on the ArbCom PD talk page for, IMO, the legitimate reason of privacy. (Others saw it as avoiding scrutiny, so I was blocked; I understand that.) The second IP address - the one that led to the extension of my block - was used once to make a deletion from the ArbCom PD talk page, but that edit was not made by me. As I've said, I've done stupid things in my life, but not that stupid. I was out to dinner with my husband when that edit was made. Even Gaijin42, whom I've had disputes with in the past, told Salvio that I'd been poked by IP addresses before, and that he (Gaijin) thought someone was "stirring the pot." In cases like this, the opinion of an (often) opponent is worth considering. Gaijin knows me pretty darn well.

I ended up taking care of the information (some of it, anyway) privately. I knew simply deleting it wouldn't really help, and that's why I'd asked to have it revdeled (not just deleted) from the get-go.

Anyway, to reiterate, the first block was frustrating, but I don't deny that I edited logged out for those; I simply disagree that my reason for doing so was inappropriate. However, the block extension (from 1 week to 2) really upsets me - because I didn't do it nor do I know who did it. I was blocked and I concentrated on addressing that block as best I could from my talk page... the only place that I have edited since my block was started.

Nonetheless, I'm not asking for another review. I just wanted to point out that there were two separate IP addresses involved, and the second one, who used it, and why they used it, are a mystery to me. Lightbreather (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Chillum: With due regards, I would like to say that I have seen too many joe jobs, deceitful acts aimed at undermining others to have faith in IP behavioral evidence of this sort. Behavior and spellings mistakes can be easily discerned and faked. Besides, if it was a proxying service, the CU should have known that it was a proxy service. If the CU says it is not a proxy, then, is it even possible for LB to have covered the geographical distance between the locations in the time difference of her edit preceding the edit in question, and the edit in question ? If that distance cannot be covered within the time, then it should clearly prove that it was not LB. Even if it was a proxy, someone doing a joe job can also use a proxy. Why overlook that ? You say that "Using multiple accounts to push a point of view in contentious areas is a serious problem here." That much is correct, except that the edit for which LB's block was extended does not seem to push any POV at all. If this , is the edit in question, it is redacting some purported outing, rather that pushing any POV. Considering these, I request you to take a fresh look / reconsider the block decline and not to overlook the possibility of a joe job ( without having a concrete reason to overlook that possibility ). Thanks in advance.OrangesRyellow (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am familiar with the ideas and patterns of the joe job. I do not think this is the case here. However in deference to your concerns I am open to another admin reviewing this block. Chillum 08:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I respect your quick agreeability to another admin doing a review. LB can put up a review request if she wants. However, you do not seem to have shown any concrete reasons for overlooking the possibility of a joe job, and do not seem to have directly dealt with any of the arguments I have put up. If there are no real arguments which could discoult my arguments, then, perhaps, you yourself could could recognize that my arguments may have substance, recognize the possibility that the edit in question may not have been made by LB, and reconsider the block decline ? OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I am wrong, but I agree it is a possibility. I am open to review but in my 8 years experience as an admin joe jobs are more clumsy impersonations. This was an example of subconscious idiosyncratic behavior that passed to duck test. If I hear hooves clacking on the ground behind me I think horse, not zebra. Occam's razor. Chillum 08:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Collapse to focus on current (December 7) appeal/unblock request.
Thanks for recognizing the possibility. That all the joe jobs in your 8 years experience were clumsy affairs seems predictable because it is improbable that expert joe jobbers would be found out in the first place. So, your line of reasoning does not seem to be very strong ? We have lots of admins with lots of experience with socking, but ALL of them failed to see User:Darkness Shines was a sock of User:Mark Nutley. I hope you see my point ? In light of that, can we take simplistic reliance on experience ( which is fallible, as evidenced ) and justify it with Occam's razor ? If that be the case, it means we behave as if there are no sophisticated joe jobbers, even after we were fooled by Darkness Shines for years, and sophisticated joe jobbers can continue framing innocent users unless they confess. This does not look like a good state of affairs to me. I also see no reason to think that there was any proxying by LB, and that LB could cover the distance between the two locations within 50-55 minutes. I certainly think that the unblock decline should be reconsidered. OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Well, we are Wikipedians. As Wikipedians, we are supposed to discuss things and show good reasons for saying the things we say. You have been fending off what I have said by an appeal to experience, and seem to be taking a staked out position saying things like "my point of view, you are welcome to another" in edit summary. If we are going to take staked out positions, what good it is to discuss and try to convince each other ( as per Misplaced Pages's traditions ). Are you sure that you have been able to explain/buttress your conclusion in any way except seeming non-arguments like appeal to experience, and "my point of view...". ( I am not trying to trivialize your arguments, and I have said this only because it is necessary to make my argument ) ? Yourself being a long-time Wikipedian, is it too much if I expect you to change your opinion when you do not seem to be showing substantial reasoning behind your opinion ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC) I don't think it is about who is right or wrong. You have recognized the possibility that this may be a joe job. That means there is room for doubt that LB has socked ? If yes, that, in itself should be reason enough to lift the block. If there is room for doubt, there is no need to wait to establish who is right / wrong.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC) You seem to be saying that the test the block reviewer should be applying is beyond reasonable doubt. It's not. There's always "room for doubt" in SPIs without a CU. The reviewer has to make a judgment call on what's most likely. That's been done. Someone else might well make a different call and Chillum says he's happy for another admin to do that. DeCausa (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC) The unblock request was declined using Occam's razor, which is a faulty criteria because it assumes that simple things are more probable, as if sophisticated things don't exist, or are rare. If we look around at our world closely, we find that the world is full of sophisticated things and systems, and even things which seem to be simple, often turn out to be not so simple. Moreover, it is a criteria which will always favor joe jobbers because considering the possibility of a joe job is more complicated than ignoring that possibility. You seem to be saying that the reviewer should decline the request even though he himself has doubts about the block, and having once declined, should keep declining because he has made the decision once and for all, and thus cannot change his opinion, even if he has doubts. Oh joy. BTW, LB, I believe, if you want a re-review, you have to put up another notice using the review template.OrangesRyellow (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Collapse to focus on current (December 7) appeal/unblock request.

Thanks for recognizing the possibility. That all the joe jobs in your 8 years experience were clumsy affairs seems predictable because it is improbable that expert joe jobbers would be found out in the first place. So, your line of reasoning does not seem to be very strong ? We have lots of admins with lots of experience with socking, but ALL of them failed to see User:Darkness Shines was a sock of User:Mark Nutley. I hope you see my point ? In light of that, can we take simplistic reliance on experience ( which is fallible, as evidenced ) and justify it with Occam's razor ? If that be the case, it means we behave as if there are no sophisticated joe jobbers, even after we were fooled by Darkness Shines for years, and sophisticated joe jobbers can continue framing innocent users unless they confess. This does not look like a good state of affairs to me. I also see no reason to think that there was any proxying by LB, and that LB could cover the distance between the two locations within 50-55 minutes. I certainly think that the unblock decline should be reconsidered. OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, we are Wikipedians. As Wikipedians, we are supposed to discuss things and show good reasons for saying the things we say. You have been fending off what I have said by an appeal to experience, and seem to be taking a staked out position saying things like "my point of view, you are welcome to another" in edit summary. If we are going to take staked out positions, what good it is to discuss and try to convince each other ( as per Misplaced Pages's traditions ). Are you sure that you have been able to explain/buttress your conclusion in any way except seeming non-arguments like appeal to experience, and "my point of view...". ( I am not trying to trivialize your arguments, and I have said this only because it is necessary to make my argument ) ? Yourself being a long-time Wikipedian, is it too much if I expect you to change your opinion when you do not seem to be showing substantial reasoning behind your opinion ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it is about who is right or wrong. You have recognized the possibility that this may be a joe job. That means there is room for doubt that LB has socked ? If yes, that, in itself should be reason enough to lift the block. If there is room for doubt, there is no need to wait to establish who is right / wrong.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that the test the block reviewer should be applying is beyond reasonable doubt. It's not. There's always "room for doubt" in SPIs without a CU. The reviewer has to make a judgment call on what's most likely. That's been done. Someone else might well make a different call and Chillum says he's happy for another admin to do that. DeCausa (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The unblock request was declined using Occam's razor, which is a faulty criteria because it assumes that simple things are more probable, as if sophisticated things don't exist, or are rare. If we look around at our world closely, we find that the world is full of sophisticated things and systems, and even things which seem to be simple, often turn out to be not so simple. Moreover, it is a criteria which will always favor joe jobbers because considering the possibility of a joe job is more complicated than ignoring that possibility. You seem to be saying that the reviewer should decline the request even though he himself has doubts about the block, and having once declined, should keep declining because he has made the decision once and for all, and thus cannot change his opinion, even if he has doubts. Oh joy. BTW, LB, I believe, if you want a re-review, you have to put up another notice using the review template.OrangesRyellow (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

For the third time now, although I disagree with the reason for the first block, there was no getting around it because the charge and the evidence were made publicly, so I couldn't argue my defense without confirming what had been outed.

BTW, does anyone remember that Hell in a Bucket originally said at the GGTF ArbCom, I'm inclined to believe the IPs editing here are some of the case parties logged out. Or remember @Callanecc: asking Hell in a Bucket to EMAIL his evidence? Instead, the evidence was focused on one IP, and publicly.

... But I digress, the first block, I can't really fight. The truth is that I was editing logged out, but the reason why, and whether or not it was block-worthy, is a judgement call. But the second block - the block extension? The truth is that it was not me. I was out to dinner with my husband when that IP editor did what he/she did. And it would have been stupid for me to do it because A) I, a regular editor, cannot revdel info, which is what I wanted (and eventually got, partially, through Oversight), and B) I would guess that such an edit, evading my block, would have resulted in another block or a longer block.

I don't like it, but I can live with that first block in my log, but the second one is harsh because it brands me for something I did not do. Lightbreather (talk) 23:18, 11 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)

Question for administrator

TEMPORARY collapse re expired, original block.
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)

TEMPORARY collapse re expired, original block.

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)

@Mike V and Salvio giuliano: Without commenting on the original, 1-week block of November 30, how can I go about getting a review of the second? IP address 69.16.147.185 is/was not me. I have done some stupid things in my life, but the edit that led to my block extension was not by me nor by anyone I know. I suspect that I either have a Phoenix area secret admirer or, more likely, a critic (probably not from Phoenix) with much more technical savvy than myself who knew that edit would be a surefire way to rub salt in the wound. Please lift my block; the original was set to expire today. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Your unblock request is still active above, so that has added you to a queue for your request to be evaluated. (See here.) Also, you could submit a request through the unblock ticket request system. Mike V • Talk 23:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. On the Requests for unblock page, under "Unblock request time," mine is the only entry that shows "No timestamp found" instead of "x days ago" on all the others, so I guess I'll go back and add my sig/time stamp on my originals. If that doesn't help soon, I'll try the ticket system. Lightbreather (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@QuiteUnusual and Mike V: Per Mike's response to my question yesterday, I have submitted a request through UTRS. The thing is, I would like to vote at ACE, and today is the last day to vote. If my 1-week block had not been extended by another week, it would have expired by now. As Salvio said above, he will accept a review. That discussion, Request to remove 1-week unblock extension, and this one give my reasons for asking for an unblock. Please help. Lightbreather (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

IP bother II

Saving here for after my block.

The IP editor - 172.56.9.95 - who poked me while I'm blocked has, up until this time, made three edits.

20:27, 3 December 2014, edit to Will Hayden, edit summary Read your source carefully before posting a BLP as there is only one woman stating she was raped by Hayden
21:18, 3 December 2014, edit to Lightbreather talk page, es Vindictiveness
22:11, 3 December 2014, edit to Will Hayden, es Cited additional sources and added appropriate material

(The additional sources for the "appropriate material" were BearingArms.com and the a New York Daily News gossip article.)

The article topic, and its revision history just prior to the addition by the IP address, are related to me in at least two ways.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser, please

@Callanecc: (or any other uninvolved checkuser reading this), could you please run a checkuser on IP address 69.16.147.185? Because of the person's edit my original block of 1 week was extended to 2 weeks for "block evasion," but that edit was not made by me or by anyone that I know. Chillum, who was last to review my block said that he is open to another admin reviewing it.

To be clear, I am not talking about the original block, which has expired anyway. I am talking about the block extension that was placed on my account because IP user 69.16.147.185 deleted info from the GGTF ArbCom page, info that I did not delete. The only page that I have edited since my block was placed is my own talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Checkuser is not run "defensively", and they generally would not report information linking an IP to a named user in any case I don't think this request is going to get you anywhere. In any case, I am pretty sure the admins have said they were doing a WP:DUCK behavioral block. In those circumstances even a negative checkuser wouldn't mean anything. I am not accusing you of anything, I don't think the IP is you, but you could have been at a friends computer, or at work, or taken your laptop to starbucks, somewhere else that would not have the same CU but could still plausibly be you. CU for the most part is nothing but an IP check, plus a few bits of info from the browser (user agent, patch # etc). Its trivial to end up with a different CU, it only trips up prolific socks, because very few people have access to dozens/hundreds of machines/ips. But for a "one-time-sock" its easy to avoid. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I've seen references to "duck" many times, but never bothered to read it before. I just did. I can see how this essay might apply to my original block, especially since I have since admitted that I did edit logged out (IP 72-something) for privacy. But I did not do the IP 69 edit. Further, IP 69 made one edit, so there's nothing to it that can be compared to any "habitual characteristics" on my part. The edit that IP made, the info he/she deleted, was related to the info I asked to have revdeled, but I didn't delete it before my block, and I wouldn't have and didn't delete it after, either. It would have been pointless, and dangerous... as it ended up being for me even though I didn't do it. Duck also says:

The duck test does not apply in non-obvious cases. Unless there is such clear and convincing evidence, editors must assume good faith from others.

If it will help an admin, I can get a copy of my receipt from the restaurant I was at on November 30 (blocked Dec. 1) when IP 69 made the edit he/she made.

For Pete's sake, I'm not asking to have the original block removed, I'm just asking to have the extension removed. IT WAS NOT ME. Lightbreather (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As Gaijin42 said, CU will likely not tell us anything since we already have the geolocation of both IPs (perhaps your only defence is that they are different states (but that doesn't prove a lot). All I'd be able to tell with CU is whether you've edited on the 69.* IP with your account which is immaterial to the issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Let us consider a hypothetical case. How does one find out about an unexpected edit, read through it to understand what it is, from where it was made, find out some other user's location and correlate it with the new edit, calculate the distance between the two locations, work out all the intricacies / simplicities of Occam's razor, and implement a block with an edit summary containing a link to a relevant page, all withing four minutes ? How does it look if the person who did all this within four minutes is running for an election in which he/she could not hope to get the blocked user's vote ? ( The block prevents the user from voting ) Does it all look appropriate, very OK ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Salvio giuliano: @Chillum: The extension of this block seems silly to me. I disagree that this is an Occam's razor situation—we had many IPs editing the arbitration case, and it seems equally likely that this could be another person or a joe job. Lightbreather admitted the edits from the first IP were theirs; I don't think it's unreasonable to extend good faith far enough to say that this edit was not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have given this my time. I have discussed this with the blocking admin. It is clear to both of us that once discovered by a checkuser you resorted to using a proxy thinking that would fool us. We know about proxies.

I am not changing my mind and I doubt the blocking admin will either. Please stop pinging me about this matter. I invite the scrutiny of the community as always. I welcome another admin to review this, but I am done here.

These blocks are not entirely separate issues as you insist in the collapse templates above. The fact that you had just engaged in sock puppetry is a relevant fact when considering the credibility of your claims. I think the any further review should take into account the sections you collapsed as to allow focus on the current issue. Chillum 18:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, please note that I didn't ping you here, but that admin @GorillaWarfare: did, who seems to be open to reviewing this. Therefore, I am thinking about making one more official "unblock" request, and hoping that others will allow GorillaWarfare to do the review. Lightbreather (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

At first look I thought it was Orange/Yellow pinging me again. I see now it was GW. My mistake, apologies to all involved. I did not think it was you. GW being an admin is welcome to review this and find differently, or any admin for that matter. Chillum 18:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed this, and I do find differently, but I don't particularly want to overturn ban extension without agreement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay well you are not going to get my agreement, at best you get my lack of objection. I discussed this with the blocking admin and we agree. I think it is a bit naive to believe the story given, however I am happy to have my sanity checked. That is why we have so many admins. Consider talking to the blocking admin yourself about this if you have not already done so. Chillum 19:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely what I am attempting to do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum. We are basically an anonymous community and the right to anonymity is a vital part of our project. I suppose everyone here is familiar with the Essjay controversy. IIRC Essjay had pretended to be someone other than what he actually was, Jimbo was told about that, but Jimbo was OK with it because he rationalized that Essjay was fibbing about his identity in order to protect his anonymity. LB has also fibbed about the initial IP edits being hers in order to protect her anonymity. If it was OK for Essjay to fib in order to protect his anonymity, why is the same not OK for LB ? Why is her fib in order to protect her anonymity being held against her ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Joe job discussion

Regarding the Lightbreather discussion that Chillum started on Salvio giuliano's talk page, since I cannot respond there, I am doing so here. Lightbreather (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Chillum: I am wondering what you make of the claims by Lightbreather that he/she was framed for the actions leading up to the block extension. A Joe job sort of thing. I don't think it is plausible. The behavior was so idiosyncratic and not the clumsy impersonation that normally comes along with a Joe job. Just wanted to see if you saw any merit in the claim.
Salvio: No, I agree with you and I don't see any merit in the claim. There is no gentle way of saying this, but, put simply, I don't believe her when she says she didn't do it; she has already lied before, when she denied operating the first IP (the one for which she was originally blocked), so I don't attach much credence to her protestations.
Chillum: I am glad we are on the same page then. Thank you.

First question, before I even respond to the details, is how am I supposed to have a chance for a positive review outcome if the original blocker and the first reviewer (who ostensibly agreed to a second review) privately agree that there is no merit to the claim? Lightbreather (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Second question goes to Chillum's first set of comments. The single edit by IP address 69.16.147.185 was the deletion of info that was related to me. There were others involved in that discussion, Question to Arbs, who felt that the information should not have been presented publicly there (on the GGTF ArbCom PD talk page). Others who spoke up and possibly others who did not speak up. Could any of those editors have made that deletion, in a misguided attempt to help me get rid of the information that I had asked to have revdeled? Lightbreather (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Third question goes to same set of comments. There were others in that discussion who had no problem with my username and IP address being connected publicly (against policy) and possibly others who felt the same way and did not speak up. (In other words, they were hoping that I would get blocked.) Could any of those editors have made that deletion, in a malicious attempt to get my block extended? Lightbreather (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Fourth question, rhetorical, involves the alleged idiosyncrasy of IP 69's behavior. Which behavior? I have already had to contribute to the outing of my personal information (real-life IP address) in order to present my argument for why I edited not-logged-in. My argument was not accepted as legitimate and for that I was blocked. And that block has expired.

But the block extension was based on one edit. There was no pattern of editing to compare to idiosyncratic behavior (as there was between my 36 edits logged out to my other edits as Lightbreather). The information that IP 69 had deleted had never been deleted by IP 72 or Lightbreather. I had asked to have it revdeled because I know enough to know that simple deletion would not have protected my personal information. There was no good reason for me to get sneaky and get myself into trouble to delete something when I know that deleting it would accomplish nothing positive for me. It wouldn't truly hide the personal information that I wanted to hide, and it would very likely cause me to be blocked again or for a longer period of time. Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Fifth question is for Salvio and involves a hypothetical.

There is a highly controversial discussion going on that you would like to participate in anonymously. You read WP:SOCK and decide that Privacy must apply, because you see that at least eight other editors have chosen to participate anonymously, too. Near the end of the discussion, someone speculates that some of the IPs (plural) in the discussion might be "case parties logged out." A clerk replies, If you've got evidence of that could you please email it to me or the clerks' list. This makes you a little nervous, so you go to the main case page and re-read the Involved parties list. Your name is not there.

Six days later, the same person who had speculated before about IPs in the discussion being logged-out case parties PUBLICLY links your username to your IP address. Within a couple of hours, the same person starts an SPI and publicly asks for a checkuser, too. You still believe that your reason for participating in the highly controversial discussion, in which you were not an involved party, was legitimate. How do you defend yourself - without outing yourself? Do you lie outright - say "I am not Salvio" - or do you dance around the problem as best you can after reading Defending yourself against claims, and say, I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. Lightbreather (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Re contrary claims

Now DeCausa joins in with his "pre-arranged alibi makes her difficult to believe" comment? Anyone who is familiar with my editing knows that I have on numerous occasions shared my RL plans when in the middle of an important discussion... as have many other editors, for that matter.

And Hell in a Bucket - who publicly outed my real-life IP address, without repercussion - chimes in with an "the evasion was her" allegation. He must believe that repeating an allegation makes it a fact. Well, it doesn't. Only one person knows for sure who the IP 69 editor was: the IP 69 editor; and only two know who was not: the IP 69 editor and I. I was not the IP 69 editor. Lightbreather (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

RFPP

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Could I please get temporary semi-protection on this talk page so I don't have to put up with pokes from unregistered users right now? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I've protected for 2 days (expires 22:53, 15 December 2014). By then your block will have expired, and if further protection is required, you can request it at WP:RFPP. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 03:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

Since other editors are continuing to discuss me on another talk page, I will respond here... since it's the only place I can respond for the time being.

In just the last 24 hours:

Admin Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has called me a liar or fibber multiple times.
Admin Chillum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has called me a liar multiple times.
Editor Hell in a Bucket (talk · contribs) has called me a liar.

says, An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. Not one of these allegations was made with a diff or in an appropriate forum. That's called "casting aspersions."

As for the claim by Chillum that, Logging out to edit a controversial area is evasion of scrutiny, not protection of privacy, - WP:VALIDALT in the sock puppetry policy says just the opposite:

Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Misplaced Pages identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Misplaced Pages actions in that area.

The real-world consequence of editing as Lightbreather in controversial areas is that I have been harassed on- and off-wiki. That is part of why I quit editing (along with, of course, not being called a "cunt," but being told that editors can act in ways deserving of being called a "cunt," and similarly comments and actions by other editors).

--Lightbreather (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)