User talk:Lightbreather: Difference between revisions

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

• Quitting a website over other people is a really dumb move in my opinion. For every idiot out there you will come across someone who is supportive and helpful. I know my words will prob have little meaning and I know you don't know me at all but I really wish you would just stay here at Wikipedia as there are people who value you here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Just because...

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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).

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

Decline reason:

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

---

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

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

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

Notes:

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

Administrator use only:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

Considering EChastain's:

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Flyer saw my first edit which I reverted because I missed the target. That was my fault and I tried to correct it quickly but not quickly enough it seems. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice lecture, Drmies. I used to have a lot of respect for you, too, but in decision after decision that went to the men - especially shielding one who harassed me even when I was on vacation - and who's behavior you expected, but held me to a higher standard - well, you lost my respect, too. Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I never stated that SPI says no in this case because of fishing. I clearly used the word "if" in my "20:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)" post above, and that post was before Lightbreather's "21:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)" post above stating the WP:CheckUser investigation was declined. I also did not state that I condone fishing with the WP:CheckUser; I was clear that there is sufficient evidence to run the EChastain account through WP:CheckUser; there is.

Hell in a Bucket, I'm not sure what post you are referring to. My comments above (except for my response about WP:Clean start) were not based on any of your posts. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the stupid title of the investigation and had to correct it [[16]]. I'm glad it wasn't based on that edit anyways because it was offbase Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lightbreather: Happy to help you out with the SPI case, but you're going to have to ignore Hell in a bucket and, apologies to Drmies for saying this, but Drmies as well. You're going to get you talk page access revoked by trading snide comment (again, sorry Drmies) for snide comment. Just stick to discussing diffs, SPIs, and facts instead of trading insults. I certainly won't do the blocking, but I have a feeling that this will be the only warning anyone will give you.--v/r - TP 22:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

The following IP editor found the above information so disturbing that he/she kept deleting it from my sandbox! (He/she has been banned for disruption.[17])

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

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

I don't know enough about all of the involved parties and others who are participating at the GGTF ArbCom, but I know that two involved parties - @Eric Corbett and Sitush: - are from or have recently been in Manchester, and that at least two others - @J3Mrs and Richerman: - who have commented on the case have strong ties to Manchester. Therefore, I am concerned that at least three of the IPs given, the Manchester IPs - could be sock or meat puppets. Lightbreather (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one of them. That is a pretty specious connection you are making and you may wish to reconsider it. - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without evidence it should be ignored out of hand, the differences in blocks here and Lightbreathers is that there was more evidence other then just a location to indicate sockpuppetry. It will all be behavioral based and there really isn't a lot so unless it's completely telling it's an argument that doesn't hold water. If evidence can be given other then just a location then that's a different story. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very serious allegation you're making. Eric Corbett 22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like one editor will be banned for, among other things, making unsupported allegations and wild assumptions. J3Mrs (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute... At least nine IP users comment on the GGTF ArbCom page, but only one is picked out of the bunch to check as a sock/meat? More than one person there suggested that IP users may not participate in "discussions internal to the project." Others talked about avoiding scruitiny, and in a way that suggested that scrutiny overides the legitimate use of alternate accounts for privacy. Why aren't these other editors held up to the same standards as the one? Is there a double standard? Lightbreather (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You getting caught socking isn't a case of being "picked out" (picked on?) randomly. There was clear behavioural evidence that gave you away, not just location. State your behavioural evidence and I'm sure someone will transpose it to SPI. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So ask a CU to check out those IP addresses, but I absolutely guarantee that none of them will correlate with the users you've named. Eric Corbett 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CU's won't publicly link the IPs with registered users like that - as was seen in the Lighbreather SPI case. It will come down to behavioural evidence, hence my request to Lightbreather to cite her behavioural evidence. In the Lightbreather SPI case, she was caught socking through behavioural evidence after the CU was declined.DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly the official line, but I think we all suspect that CUs are performed in secret all the time. Eric Corbett 23:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can unequivocally state that I have never commented on that case under anything but my own username. In fact, as far as I remember, I have never contributed to wikipedia as an anonymous IP. Richerman (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One to the GGTF ArbCom

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629250227

There is an interesting comment in this post:

If I could understand the scope of this case and wasn't in hiding, I might be tempted to list others where you didn't apologise/retract but obviously should have done.

This immediately after saying:

You make a lot of that general type of error, Carolmooredc, causing you to make fairly frequent apologies, retractions or amendments. An example would be your assumption that Montanabw was a man.

Which reminded me of this Blame game? discussion, especially the comment by J3Mrs, Don't forget when an editor disagreed with you on the GGTF page you accused her of being male....[18]

And one to a user talk page

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=prev&oldid=629276476

I've seen this same sort of comment (sometimes playful, sometimes like a dissertation) over what a term means multiple times by Eric Corbett and Sitush.

My gut tells me (as Hell in a Basket says) that this IP editor may be J3Mrs. Or, considering the "in hiding" remark and things Sitush said that are given in the next section - Sitush.

Lightbreather (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your gut is 100% wrong. I don't even live in Manchester or even Greater Manchester. I suggest you retract it. J3Mrs (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever visit Manchester? Lightbreather (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three to the GGTF ArbCom (for a total of about 2.5Kb added to case discussion)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629742872
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629743261
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629780209

And one to WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&diff=prev&oldid=629759866

All of these posts were on October 15, 2014. In an talk page discussion Party to Arbitration Case, Sitush said:

Doubt I'll be adding evidence. I am once again briefly in Manchester but will soon be leaving and am thus spending my short bit of time here refuting errant claims etc in the Workshop phase.

At this point, Sitush had already announced his "retirement," and in this post he says he doubts he'll be adding evidence. He also says that he is in Manchester.

All of this - Manchester, the GGTF ArbCom, India-related topics, the timing - suggest to me Sitush.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.232.124.60

• When I became aware that this editor was going to just keep removing information that I had in my sandbox to study, I asked him/her to email me so we could discuss.[19]

• He/she replied, "I'll not be emailing you. Do not provoke EC and Sitush with this. It is EXTREMELY unwise."[20]

This person deleted this information over 36 times, and was finally blocked by Samwalton9 (talk · contribs).

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is that "evidence"? Evidence of what? Eric Corbett 23:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, it's at least evidence that someone in Manchester really doesn't want to have IP editing in Manchester related to the GGTF ArbCom case scrutinized. Lightbreather (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]