• to do
• help

You are clearly editing in response to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force. Please follow Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, specifically regarding WP:RS. You do not seem to be adhering to a neutral point of view. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:EvergreenFir There are no reliable sources in Mansplaining supporting your claim that it's an academic concept. No reason for your revert. EChastain (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are. Read WP:LEAD. Also see Talk:Mansplaining#Meme. Attempting dispute resolution. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:EvergreenFir, I read WP:LEAD, and Mansplaining doesn't follow it. It doesn't have a lead that can stand alone and sums up the article:

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.^[1] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."

EChastain (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Mansplaining shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even give me 3 minutes to post on the talk page before reverting. After posting the screenshot of the article that you didn't read, you still reverted anyway. WP:IDHT. I'll let others weigh in. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: you should know better than to revert three minutes after my revert (which I had justified on talk) without engaging on the talk page or even reading it. You had not responded to the link I gave to the scholarly article you used for the citation, proving that it didn't say what you claimed it did. I have posted quite a bit on talk, while you have posted nothing of relevance, except to claim that you have no time to look into the problems and asking others to do it. Really? What made it so important that you must revert without knowing anything at all about why? Please, be a more professional academic if you're going to claim you're one, or you'll make us all look bad! EChastain (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Twat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PG. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Help:Watching pages. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead, where you are given a good deal of freedom in what you write. DSCrowned^(Talk) 14:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DSCrowned: How was my edit to Help:Watching pages that you reverted a "joke edit"? I corrected labelled Wikipedia:Talk page stalker listed under the "See also" section a "humorous essay". Wikipedia:Talk page stalker says

So I don't see how my edit could be called a "joke edit" and reverted on those grounds. EChastain (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EChastain: Just remember that every Wikipedia article, policy page and help page shouldn't be humorous or contain jokes, unless tagged with the {{humour}} tag. Thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia though. DSCrowned^(Talk) 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I might be wrong, I think your telling me that this article is a humorous article. Oh that's why I am sorry. DSCrowned^(Talk) 20:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timothy Treadwell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go read WP:REFACTOR. I'm perfectly allowed to improve the format of the page. I did not edit your comment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:EvergreenFir, you're not the hall monitor. Stop acting like one. Go read WP:REFACTOR. Your refactoring was not for any of the right reasons. Stop following me around on arbcom. I don't think very many other editors find your comments useful. EChastain (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. User:EvergreenFir, you don't know what you're talking about on Mansplaining, but it's not worth my time dealing with you. I would expect a better understanding of what reliable sourcing is from a teacher or an "academic" which you claim to be. The uninformed statement that people such as you decide what a social phenomenon is versus a slur is pompous silliness. EChastain (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following you around when you pinged me? You really don't get how WP works. Also I do recommend reading WP:REFACTOR since you clearly have not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also learn how to WP:INDENT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You two are getting heated over some indents, come on it isn't worth it. EChastain you shouldn't have made such a big deal about indents, Evergreen you should have just left it alone. There are plenty of other problems to worry about here on Wikipedia for now I recommend to read up on WP:CIVIL. To EChastain's credit though editors can get heated when their comments are refactored so I understand why the upset feelings but as I said making a mountain over a molehill here - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Knowledgekid87. I thought about the formatting carefully when posting as the thread had become lost in a maze of indents. Removing the outdent decreased my comment's readability, perhaps her intention as she has dismissed my previous comments or unhelpfully lectured me, so I had no reason at all to assume good faith. I'm tired of being meddled with and lectured by EvergreenFir. EChastain (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I don't know if you found this yet but we have Userboxes here on Wikipedia. =) I cant make you place userboxes on your main page but its always nice to find out more about a person. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to do is copy/paste the template {{User:Feureau/UserBox/ProudWikipedian}} for example onto your Userpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I'll check them out and see if any are relevant to me. Thanks! EChastain (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and welcome! One of the ones I saw you mention was you being a female, they have an infobox for that for example:

Have fun with your infoboxes =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87, thanks, but I've removed the infobox. After reading through the GGTF arbcom, the comments by Carolmooredc and especially Neotarf, and the ridiculous POV agenda of the GGTF members, I've no wish to be identified as a women here on wikipedia.

This GGTF arbcom is out of control, and I think the final decision is likely to do harm to en:wiki and decrease the retention of editors that I admire. The lecturing know-it-all comments by EvergreenFir, and her agenda-driven take on mansplaining, for example, gives me the idea that en:wiki is being taken over by a new type of editor, far different from the many learned, well-educated and creative editors whose writing I've admired and respected from the early days. The way I feel now, I think I'll probably edit very little here in the future. EChastain (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of areas on Wikipedia, I find my main home editing manga and anime related articles. Yeah editors might leave but hey there is just as much of a chance that new ones will come to replace them. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edid conflict) Yeah, en:wiki has been diminishing since 2006 or so in my eyes. In fact, I've not edited for a very long time but I find the atmosphere is so changed now that I've little appetite. Maybe a few edits here and there, but certainly I'll never put the energy into writing, editing, adding reliable sources that I did in the past. No point when these new editors don't even seem to understand reliable sourcing. EChastain (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add too that I am sure this has happened in the past as well, the supporters are there because over time friendships have formed so when someone points out a flaw in someone of course the yare going to rush to their defense. The sides were already present long before the arbcom case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It's not any particular article, as I've wide ranging interests. it's the new mentality exemplified by EvergreenFir's revert of a comment by Giano on Jimbo's talk page, calling him a troll. EvergeenFir is a symptom of the future here. EChastain (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you call anyone a troll it is in bad taste though and Giano has had a grudge against Jimbo for quite some time now to the point of disruption. My advice would be to just edit in places Evergreen is not present. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledgekid87, regarding your comment about "supporters" and "friendships" above, I didn't have a "side" until I started reading the GGTF arbcom and looking at editors' behavior. I think it's a simplification to say Giano has had a "grudge" against Jimbo for quite some time - saying that doesn't take into account the history over the years. Some don't agree with Jimbo, Jimbo doesn't like that, so over time disagreements with him are called "grudges". Jimbo has "grudges" too then, by repeatedly badmouthing specific editors as he has done. Up pop little Jimbo worshipers like EvergreenFir; there is a term for people like her that isn't gender-based, referring to a brown nose. That type of behavior I find disgusting. At least her revert was reverted with an edit summary that Giano isn't a troll. But when those editors, like the one who reverted EvergreenFir are gone, all will be lost. EChastain (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get drawn into all of this until I got insulted by Eric Corbett while editing one day and I see I am not alone by looking at Dank. Editors are being drawn in here by a select few's actions and something is going to give eventually. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Eric Corbett can be rude. But I don't agree with the major premise of the GGTF editors that he is a misogynist or that his comments are sexual harassment. And I agree with Victoriaearle and Voceditenore, Montanabw and others that the GGTF is patronizing to women. EChastain (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is for the best that the GGTF task force is shut down it already has a bad rep as it is. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EChastain, responding to the ping. Just to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest the GGTF is patronizing, but rather that I think the arbitration proceedings are; nor do I dispute that there were some real problems on the GGTF page. What I'm trying to articulate, and perhaps not well, is that it would be better for the community to work out notions of civility, etc., rather than have the mostly-male arbitration committee choose bannings "because of the women". Things like that never really seem to work out well, but that's simply my opinion, and it probably would have been better to have stayed out of the fray. Victoria (tk) 18:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle, apologies for misrepresenting your comments to Knowledgekid87. I agree with you that the arbitration proceedings are patronising (I hope my long comments there didn't contribute to that). I think your words above are spot on: it would be better for the community to work out notions of civility, etc., rather than have the mostly-male arbitration committee choose bannings "because of the women". I also had trouble articulating my thoughts, and wasn't able to come up with a concise summary. There were so many things that bothered me about the whole thing. EChastain (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FORUM. If someone complains about an article but makes it 90% about their beliefs and does not address the article in any substantive way, that's WP:FORUM. I know you have your POV on that article, as do I, and I know you dislike me but step back and look at the comment itself. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir, please post your comments about this article on the Mansplaining talk page (where I've responded), and refrain from personalizing my problems with the article. Please read WP:FORUM, a section of WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not for advocacy. EChastain (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my comment was about your revert not the article hence why I posted here EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EChastain: Regarding this post,[1] would you mind rewording it? It could suggest that I am "massively disruptive" or incompetent.

Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather: I think you're misreading what I said. I don't think saying you are likely "a good person" could lead to a finding against you. You're not even a party to this case. Anyway, my post there isn't going to have much if any influence on the arbcom, so if I were you I wouldn't worry about that. It would cause more disruption on that page if I started changing my post, I think. But if I were you, I wouldn't continue posting there. (Just my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, which isn't much.) Best wishes, EChastain (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel if I wrote something like this, off of your talk page (or at some equally inappropriate forum, like say an ArbCom about people other than yourself)?

I think most editors posting here or on GGTF are "a good person" (e.g.EChastain). But that doesn't mean they can't be massively disruptive on wikipedia, or that they have the competence required.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm truly sorry that you are offended. It was unintentional on my part; anyway you'd made it clear that you were leaving wikipedia forever over a month ago, driven off by Eric Corbett. I think you're making too much of this. The pronoun "they" refers to "most editors posting", and not to you. I've already made comments with diffs regarding my opinions about specific editors.

I used "good person" in the sense of "well-meaning" and intended to say that even well-meaning editors can still make unsupported statements, take the remarks of others too personally, push a POV etc., resulting in disruption to wikipedia.

If someone made the comment that I (specifically naming me) was "massively disruptive" or that I don't "have the competence required", with diffs offering evidence of my behavior, the factually accuracy of those statements about me would be for others to decide. I just gave my general opinion under "Final comments". Surely expressing my general view is ok, don't you think? It's just a drop in the ocean of that whole arbcom, and no one has said that you (Lightbreather) is "massively disruptive". EChastain (talk) 00:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gang bang, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Americanism. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, EChastain. You have new messages at Lightbreather's talk page.
Message added 20:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

You have a fan club it seems. do so hope they are wrong but I wqanted you to be aware the plot was a foot. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell.--v/r - TP 20:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider it isn't being used against you. I think that we have an editor upset they were caught and they are trying to sling mud everywhere. I have put evidence up on your behalf on the SPI. I'd just ignore this user and focus your claims on the investigation because it doesnt matter what they say. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but no. EChastain (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(crossposted to EvergreenFir's talk)

• EvergreenFir, on your talk page Volunteer Marek is only asking you to do what any regular editor is supposed to do, even admins although your not one.

  If you are editing (and reverting) an article, you are also required to discuss the changes on talk.

  I had this problem with you on mansplaining. On my talk you repeatedly lectured me[2], [3] reverted my edits within minutes without any discussion on talk, templated my talk page, threating my with being blocked.[4]. Then said "You didn't even give me 3 minutes to post on the talk page before reverting."[5] You had already reverted my without any discussion on talk, as I explained to you.[6] Then you refactored my post at arbcom, justing that with another lecture.[7]Please follow what Volunteer Mark is saying you are required to do.

  I'm crossposting this to my own talkpage. EChastain (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EChastain: First, I am not required to do anything. But I will discuss the edits about Crimea. Second, you are dipping your toes into WP:HOUNDING. You are not part of the Crimea page content dispute, so please don't insert yourself just because I am. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: - you've made 11 posts on my talkpage including a template threatening me with a block for a revert (reverting without talkpage discussion being one of the subjects on your page made by another user, including your lack of discussion on article's talk, regarding your behavior in the Crimea content dispute) plus you refactored my comments on the arbcase, plus you reverted me twice without any corresponding explanation on the article's talk page, or discussing or even reading the article's talk. Who's "dipping" toes into WP:HOUNDING?

Here are your comments on this page, in chronological order:

1. "You are clearly editing in response to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force. Please follow Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, specifically regarding WP:RS. You do not seem to be adhering to a neutral point of view."
2. Lecture telling me to read WP:LEAD.
3. Templated my talk, with big red stop, including: Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing and recommending I read WP:BRD. (EvergreenFir, I'd reverted no more than you did, and I had discussed on article talk - you had not.)
4. Complaint that "You didn't even give me 3 minutes to post on the talk page before reverting" (EvergreenFir, you should discuss your explanation there before you continued to revert. Fortunately the other editors of that article mostly agreed with my comments on talk, including fixing the lead, and changes were made in the article, along the lines I was suggesting.)
5. "Go read WP:REFACTOR. I'm perfectly allowed to improve the format of the page" (EvergreenFir, yeah, by burying my comment under massive indents)
6. "Following you around when you pinged me? You really don't get how WP works. Also I do recomment reading WP:REFACTOR" (EvergreenFir, you're not required to respond to every notification, in case you didn't know, but I've stopped notifying you per your understanding of notification.)
7. "Also learn how to WP:INDENT." (Fortunately at this point Knowledgekid87 intervened, recommending that we both read WP:CIVIL, ending with: "To EChastain's credit though editors can get heated when their comments are refactored so I understand why the upset feelings but as I said making a mountain over a molehill here")
8. "Please read WP:FORUM"
9. "my comment was about your revert not the article hence why I posted here." (EvergreenFir, no. Discussions about reverts belong on the article talk page.)
10. "@EChastain: First, I am not required to do anything. But I will discuss the edits about Crimea. Second, you are dipping your toes into WP:HOUNDING. You are not part of the Crimea page content dispute, so please don't insert yourself just because I am."

    EvergreenFir, so who's WP:HOUNDING who?

11. "HOUNDING means you follow someone into areas you are not editing just because they are there. I've not followed you anywhere. Everywhere we've interacted, I've already been an editor there." EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EChastain (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HOUNDING means you follow someone into areas you are not editing just because they are there. I've not followed you anywhere. Everywhere we've interacted, I've already been an editor there. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:HOUNDING "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

Does that fit what I did, per your accusation above? Or do you once again not really understand the policies/guidelines, essays that you tell me to read?

Please stop posting here. Stay away from my talk. EChastain (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the tenactiy of your defense and I find a lot of your answers reasonable. I would suggest on stop trying to convince both Lightbreather and Tparis, they have a singular vision which as they have stated has not altered. You can see yourself how weak some of the evidence is and it isn't even really connected. I'd be surprised if they find that you were Sue Rangell and if you are congrats on a great job thus far, you sure fooled me. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, I agree. Lightbreather's so-called evidence is just ridiculous. Makes her seem flaky. Makes TParis look foolish that he takes it seriously. I read a long, passionate post to TParis from Lightbreather. I don't know what the agenda is there, but what's this thing about Sue Rangell? I get the idea if Carolmooredc and her sidekick can make me into Sue Rangell, apparently a vicious enemy of both of them, then they'll use that to overturn the arbcom decision. @Hell in a Bucket:, would it be ok for me to email you a question? EChastain (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

go for it. you know the email this user correct? my talkpage left side of the browser will send it to me. Even if you were a sock of there would be a block and that's about it. Sometimes when bad things happen you want them to happen to other people too, the interesting part remaining is that before her ban commenced it appears Carolmooredc said you weren't who she thought you were. Either way I'll wait for you email. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you are Sue Rangell as there would be nothing to gain from it. Are you editing in areas that Sue was banned from? No, Sue's account is not even banned so why the need to sock? It bothers me I guess that you feel the need to hide information about yourself out of fear of others as you should feel free to express and be proud of yourself. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to ignore the comments made towards you as you are just going to get more of the same thing back, go edit someplace and enjoy Wikipedia rather than being involved in something you know isn't true. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am heading off to bed, I see that HIAB up above has been giving you the same advice to ignore things but for some reason you aren't listening to advice of editors who are only trying to help you here. I hope things turn out for the better, Wikipedia is a big place with thousands of articles to edit and tons of wiki-projects to invest your time in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure, I think you're a returning editor using a new account. Thing is, I don't care and nobody else is going to care so long as you stay out of trouble. I don't see LB's SPI going anywhere but you're doing yourself no favors by fighting it so vehemently. You've already sufficiently cast doubt on it. Also, tone down the language a bit against LB like saying she doesn't know what she's doing, etc. And don't try to wikilawyer about whether she should even be able to be doing what she's doing while blocked. Around here the person carrying the stick is usually the one to get whacked with it. You're already in a bit of conflict with Evergreen above as well. They're a good editor and reasonable from what I've seen. She even came to your aid in the SPI. Edit somewhere you're not in a conflict for bit. Relax. I think you'll find it will all blow over.Capeo (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capeo gives good advice, I will state on the record though the amount of proxying WP:EVADE on this case and pinging umpteen admin, arbs etc on any other person would have netted a talkpage restriction long long ago. Either way I'd stop adding evidence to counter it, it's clear you aren't Sue Rangell. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that what's going on at LB's talkpage is, frankly, ridiculous. And that's all the more reason to stay far away from it. I doubt it's going to end well. Capeo (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My prediction is that she is trying to prove Sue Rangell is responsible for her current situation and somehow was trying to evade the dispute and have privacy. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a sound deduction. That said I'm not going to converse about LB anymore. I had a run in with her when she accused SCal of harassing her and I was, I believe, the first person to call out the IP as being her on the PD talk page. I'm sure she's watching this page. Don't need the headache of her claiming something about me next. Capeo (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Capeo: and @Hell in a Bucket: Thanks so much for giving me some emotional support. I've looked through Lightbreater's talk archives and it's obvious she has a disruptive history over some gun control articles primarily, and has caused several editors grief. Though she thanks StarryGrandma, she consistently failed to follow her mentor's advice. Agree that Sue Rangell is the target, not me. EChastain (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you ignored all our advice and went right after LB again. At this point you're doing exactly what you claim she's doing. I'll offer no further advice on the matter. Capeo (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If one is innocent of socking, then one has nothing to fear & so wouldn't/shouldn't be complaining about any SPIs. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Capeo, I'm not after Lightbreather. I don't care what happens to her, or to me for that matter. I've withdrawn my request at ANI. Mostly I'm just appalled at how things are handled here. Lightbreather's situation merely illustrates the regular wiki "goings on". The lack of transparency makes it very difficult to figure out what's going on and makes me question whether the effort of creating and writing content is worth it any more. I've never been in an arbcom case. or commented on one, but have followed some closely.

I admitted I had a strong reaction over the spamming of Hell in a Bucket's post, which led my to look into things. I haven't had an account for at least five years, editing as an IP. But with a change in personal circumstances, I remembered the pleasure of creating and writing articles in collaboration with others here. But this place has changed, or maybe I'm just seeing a different side. I suppose I can't go back to the IP again because I would be a sockpuppet then. All this talk about identifying the "Sock master" when it doesn't seem to occur to anyone that there isn't one in my case. But undoubtedly, if I edit more articles, there'll be continuing attempts to connect me to a Sock master, per Flyer22 who says her talents include "sniffing" out socks. Regrettably, EChastain (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to GoodDay, I don't fear anything here. What's to fear? It's irritating that now I'm on the radar for others to snip at. But I don't have to continue editing. I have no compulsion to do so. But I do see now how editors are drawn into drama - much easier to be a drama queen/ king than to produce and edit content. EChastain (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep protesting (here & other places), you risk creating the impression of someone who's guilty & trying to cover his/her tracks. Simply stop complaining & begin main space editing. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EChastain, didn't I tell you to not mention me unless you are going to mention me correctly? You are not a new Wikipedia editor, which you have also confirmed. What I stated about you is that I knew you were not a new Wikipedia editor, because, obviously (to a very experienced Wikipedian such as myself), you are not. Now keep my username out of your mouth...er away from your fingers on the keyboard...unless there is an actual good reason to mention me and you mention me accurately. If you keep misrepresenting my statements and pinging me via WP:Echo when I don't want a thing to do with you, I will take you to WP:ANI for WP:Harassment. Flyer22 (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22 (self proclaimed expert sock sniffer) and (self-proclaimed very experienced Wikipedian), I never said I was a new editor. Go ahead and take me to WP:ANI for WP:Harassment. Notification was to be polite and doesn't require an answer. Due to WP:Harassment from Flyer22 TParis, and Lightbreather, I'm never posting here again. Anybody wonder why wikipedia can't retain editors? EChastain (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EChastain: You know it kind of upsets me that that is your reasoning, here you can go and edit Wikipedia and go about your business but you chose to focus all your time and energy on these select group of people. The fault isn't Wikipedia it is your own. By the way I want to add that the SPI closed with no action taken so all your time focused was for nothing as editors had been telling you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many WP:Sockpuppet cases where I was correct should I point you to before you get the point that, yeah, I'm very good at spotting non-new Wikipedia editors (WP:Sockpuppets or not)? Maybe this recent case (the Yev Yev matter)? Yeah, I'm the one who contacted people to do some digging into that account, and it ended up with a WP:CheckUser seeing that there was enough evidence to run a WP:CheckUser on that account. Yev Yev trying to buddy up to me before I had others dig into that account proved futile. If you had actively pretended to be new, any claims that you are new would have been futile to my eyes. I am rarely wrong about people being WP:Sockpuppets or returning editors, and I do mean rarely. However, as has already been made clear, I never stated that you are a WP:Sockpuppet. I stated that you are not new to editing Wikipedia, and expressed agreement that there was valid concern about your past editing history. I left the matter alone. I did not continue to mention you or seek you out. But you continue to mention me and seemingly seek comment from me, which is why your retirement message is bogus because it partly concerns me. You'll be back on Wikipedia, whether as EChastain or as a new account. And if you do return as a new account, you can guarantee that I will be able to spot you. As many at this site know, there is nothing self-proclaimed about my Wikipedia editing experience. I never stated that I am "an expert sock sniffer," but, yeah, I stated something similar to that and I might as well be one. Flyer22 (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, toot, toot your own little self-promoting horn. I never said I was a new user (can you understand that?) and I never said that I wasn't a returning editor (can you understand that?) so it doesn't take a genius to deduce what I already said. Now bye forever. I've retired. But good for you for figuring it out, anyway. Now, bye. I've retired due to harassment from you and TParis Both of you have fund with your little friend, Lightbreather! EChastain (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will "toot, toot [my] own little self-promoting horn.", since you keep dragging me into your mess. You asked, "Can [I] understand [what you mean]?"... The problem is that you don't seem to be understanding things as far as they concern me, or you are intentionally acting like you don't understand them. You were being discussed as not being a new editor, by various people, including those who were not even aware that you had stated that you are not a new editor. Got that? I stated that it was easy for me to see that you are not new by looking at your user contribution history. Got that? I then expressed agreement that there was valid concern about your past editing history. I left the matter alone. I did not continue to mention you or seek you out. But you continue to mention me and seemingly seek comment from me. Got that? That I left the matter alone is easy for anyone to see, except apparently you. You keep acting like I have continually concerned myself with you. I have not, and, like I made perfectly clear to you with this edit summary, I don't want a thing to do with you. You have kept pinging me, which you know I don't like; it's also unneeded as far as your talk page is concerned since I currently have your user talk page on my WP:Watchlist, and I only have it on my WP:Watchlist because I don't trust you and because you keep inaccurately mentioning me. You have obsessed over me, similar to those who have obsessed over/stalked me in that past. I have had enough of people on Wikipedia being obsessed with me/stalking me (unless they are the type of stalkers I welcome). And, no, I have not called you a stalker. But given the sketchiness concerning just what past Wikipedia account you edited under, and how you have acted regarding me? Yeah, other than not trusting you, I don't want a thing to do with you. If others had not felt the need to question your not-newness, you would not have been involved in the not-newness/WP:Sockpuppet drama you've recently been involved in. Perhaps you should have thought twice, or better, before popping up under a different account and putting yourself in the middle of WP:ArbCom drama. You wanted my attention. Well, now you got it. If I at all spot you in the future under a different Wikipedia account, I am likely to note it (whether via email like the Yev Yev case and similar cases, or publicly). Then again, I might simply let you get caught by someone else. Goodbye, you state? We'll see. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is EChastain SPI and ad hominems. Thank you. v/r - TP 01:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Welcome" to Wikipedia. What they don't tell you is that although Wikipedia-the-encyclopedia is awesome, Wikipedia:: the namespace often sucks. I, too, don't believe you're a new editor, based on this. (Brilliant, aren't I?) Anyway, I've left some comments on the ANI thread, which likely will be effective as sticking a finger in a dike. At this point, there's really nothing you can do except ignore it; stay off of TParis's talk page and disengage from the GGTF fiasco. Thanks for all your past contributions and hopefully things will blow over such that you can continue helping write the encyclopedia in the future. NE Ent 10:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Id take a look here [[8]]. I'd also suggest taking off that retired template on your user page if you are going to edit content, your choice if you keep it though.. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a semi-retired template on my user talk page. The word "semi" covers a wide range of options if required. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do that. EChastain (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palo Cedro, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cow Creek. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chelapur Village, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Noorpur. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out to me that you seconded my nomination for "Editor of the Week", that was very kind of you. Thanks, I remain astonished. J3Mrs (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J3Mrs, you're "astonished" because you were selected for "Editor of the Week"? Or because I seconded your nomination? EChastain (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first, I don't think I was aware of such an award. I consider it a compliment that you should have seconded it. Thanks again. :)

For letting me know that I was mentioned in the ArbCom or whatever that process is called. Regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 11:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have had trouble finding links to the three recent AE proceeedings re the other EC. Here they are:

• Opened 23:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC), Closed 18:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Opened 22:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC), Closed 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Opened 16:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC), Closed 20:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

To find them, I went to WP:AE, scrolled down to "Arbitration enforcement archives" box, typed in his name, and clicked on "Search archives." The last one, as of today, has not yet been moved into an archive file.

I am perturbed you told Roger Davies that TParis, Rationalobserver, and Gamaliel are my proxies.[9] In the future, if you're going to make such allegations, I suggest you bring it up at the appropriate place and ping those whom you mention.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better if you just stayed out of it EC, here is what another editor had said to me: "but you, at least, have a decent chance of withdrawing from it before the serious threats start. I learned my lesson too late and even had to relocate because of it" in other words there are editors out there who take this place way too seriously, something that I never thought of. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link me to what you are referring to, because I have absolutely no idea what this is about. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to make on-wiki accusations about me, I think it's highly inappropriate to refuse to link me to the supposed evidence of my off-wiki activities. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any specific reasons why you refuse to provide me a link? Do you think it's appropriate to make accusations without evidence? Per WP:WIAPA: "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable, [including:] Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." You've made this personal attack at least twice, so please don't repeat it, unless you are willing to provide evidence per policy. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ivanvector (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like mantras. I think they work. I especially like this one; Calm your mind in order to restore equilibrium and normalcy. . Buster Seven Talk 15:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buster7, I do too, and Lao Tzu. (But I struggle, being a human being!) EChastain (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we all? TRA! . Buster Seven Talk 17:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice that you stated at my talk page: "Long ago I remember Victoriaearle being harassed by sockpuppets so I overreacted this time in trying to find evidence." However, your account only dates back to October 2014, so did you have a previous account? Rationalobserver (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell, especially the most recent one (December 18) and the evidence re the Mogollon Rim and Robert Spitzer. Lightbreather (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rationalobserver, this editor has previously admitted to editing as an IP user, it was during the GGTF Arbcom case. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well I guess that's good enough for me. EChastian, you have been following me around lately. Will you please stop? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem this was the relevant part of where we discussed it on my page, [[10]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EChastain, I noticed your edits on some toilet-related pages and saw your note on the talk page of Doc_James. Always great to find people who are interested in toilets! How about joining our WikiProject Sanitation? About the photos on Commons that came from the SuSanA Flickr Account, yes, that's my baby (i.e. I am the one who organised this huge flickr photo collection of 10,000+ photos which were last year transferred to Wikimedia Commons). If you are wondering about categorisation, take a look at how we have done it here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gtzecosan/collections/ . This might give some inspiration? EvM-Susana (talk) 07:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EvM-Susana. Yes, I'm interested in toilets! I've seen your name repeatedly on the images I've been dealing with on the Commons, especially those that are primarily from Africa, like pit latrines and other sanitation-related images. I've run into inconsistencies in the categories and the way images are sorted there. So I'm in the process of collecting articles here that relate to this topic so I can bone up and learn about this as best I can. I'm in a discussion right now on the Commons with another editor who wants to redo the whole category structure regarding variations of toilets, rooms that toilets are in, etc. but we seem to be disagreeing. I prefer categories that will make sense to those from a broad range of cultures and languages, rather than a predominantly North American view.

I contacted Doc James when I realised that he's involved in an effort on en:wiki to increase awareness on sanitation, especially as it relates to health. (I'm very interested in the subject.) I'm going to join WikiProject Sanitation. I would appreciate your view, and those of other project members, on how these images can best be categorised there. I looked at the flicker collections briefly, but they're so small on my screen that I can't make sense of them right now but will work on it. Thanks for contacting me! And for the opportunity to meet you in person, so to speak. EChastain (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi EChastain. Thanks for joining our Wikiproject Sanitation, that's super! You are the first person to join our project that I didn't know already beforehand by e-mail. :-) Regarding the categorisation of photos on Commons perhaps this is better discussed by direct e-mail or on our SuSanA discussion forum (as many of the photos were contributed by other SuSanA members). That's www.forum.susana.org (you can also find my e-mail address there as it's at the end of my posts, and I make posts almost daily)...EvM-Susana (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way we have done it on flickr is firstly by country and secondly by thematic area (one photo can be in several different sets). Does the categorisation on Commons also allow for one photo to be in different sets or categories? Why is the categorisation actually important, who looks at it? Don't people rather find their photos via Google image searches? When I insert a photo from Commons into a Wikipedia article, I usually find it via a keyword search. In which other way do other people user the photos on Commons? I am actually still a bit confused about it all. It was the bright idea of Doc_James to run a bot which transferred all our photos from flickr to Wikimedia commons (and we plan to run it again 2-4 times per year to get new photos across that we put on Flickr. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvM-Susana, I was just looking at the flickr photos and recognised some of them! As far as categorisation on the Commons, yes a photo can be in more than one category - like "Sanitation in XXX (country)", "Pit latrines", etc. I don't know how people find photos there; in fact, I don't know if anyone has looked into that. From mt own experience, search is useful but is dependent on what category the image is in, the name of the image, and the description. It's not a foolproof method, and nothing beats manual hunting. Categories on the Commons can be linked to articles via commonscat (in some other languages the wording varies), so that provides a wider audience for the images. The problem is how to name categories and how to nest them. The editor I'm in discussion with originally wanted the top category to be "Washroom", and other categories would be nested under that. Today we agreed that perhaps the best "top category" is "Sanitation" but there still remains resolving the names of other categories. For example. originally, he wanted many "pit latrines" in Africa to be under "mobile toilets" because some of them look like they are. Now he sees that most them are "pit latrines" and not mobile. His next suggestion is Outhouse, but I don't think that fits for countries where, outside of cities, almost all toilets, latrines etc, are outside dwellings. Whatever we arrive at has to be with the agreement of the Commons community, though I don't think too many editors there are interested enough to participate in the discussions. But they will delete categories if they think they don't make sense to them. EChastain (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-ha, "outhouse" and "washroom" certainly sounds very US-centric to me! Please don't use that... Let's stick to the internationally recognised terms, things like sanitation, toilet, pit latrine, composting toilet, dry toilet, mobile toilet are all possible terms, depending on what level of detail you want to go into. The Compendium of Sanitation Systems and Technologies is our "bible" and could be used as a guidance: www.ecompendium.sswm.info Remember there is more to sanitation than just toilets, there is also transport, treatment, reuse or disposal... EvM-Susana (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvM-Susana,I agree and have some support from other editors for sticking to internationally recognised terms. Just showing you what I'm dealing with on the Commons. I originally got involved because I noticed that the whole category "Toilets" was up for deletion! There's articles on en:wiki on the terms you mention above, and I'm hoping to come up with a persuasive argument for some sort of meaningful categorisation system for the Commons. On en:wiki the article on Latrines is one recently translated from the French, demonstrating the US focus here! EChastain (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is en:wiki? Latrine (instead of toilet) is really quite an outdated term, that's why the English page on latrines is kept really short - main terms nowadays are toilets (and underneath that: pit latrine as one type of toilet; yes, slightly inconsistent that we prefer "pit latrine" to "pit toilet" but that's how it is). Why would someone want to delete the category "toilets"? The photos would not be deleted, right, just the category? EvM-Susana (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvM-Susana, en:wiki refers to the English Wikipedia. In looking through many hundreds of images, the use of "latrine" is quite common so I though maybe it was important. I think the French use it alot. But yes, in English "toilet" is way more common, and "latrines" are for summer camps or Army barracks. But the editor who wants to delete all the "toilet" categories on the Commons is from Canada, I think. See this discussion on the Commons. EChastain (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can get some pics taken in Africa of pit latrines. Might take a little while though and I might have to secure permission from the copyright holder or have them released as PD. But they're good pics. Pinged. Victoria (tk) 21:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle, yes, I'm always interested in good pictures and especially if the images are accompanied by details, like location in Africa, kind of latrine, toilet etc. Doc James has done extensive work in organising information about sanitation meant to be available worldwide as a resource. It's quite exciting, I think. Thanks for your offer. EChastain (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Before I bail, yes, it's important work. Mentioned it on my about to be last talk page comment but will answer here too. Victoria (tk) 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer here: I don't mind, I haven't edited there in years. Nishidani did much of the heavy lifting some years ago. If it goes to review he should get some credit, but other than that, like all of our articles (or most of them) anyone can edit, I suppose. Victoria (tk) 21:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Victoriaearle, that's fine, though I was thinking of other editors also, as Ceoil (sp?) got quite upset defending Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (van Eyck) and even got taken to ANI. EChastain (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last of your diffs at AN/I, the one about another AN/I section, is by an IP, not by RO. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check. EChastain (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yngvadottir, thanks for catching that. It was a mistake on my part, and I've struck the link. EChastain (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. At this point there are a lot of eyes watching Rationalobserver for any sort of inappropriate behavior. Given that this user has plenty of supervision and has also expressed a desire not to be monitored by you perhaps you could agree to find other areas of Wikipedia to take care of and leave Rationalobserver for others to watch? Chillum 23:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. I'm one of many that she has said the same thing about. So I don't take it personally at all. EChastain (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate that. Chillum 23:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillum:, I will point out though, that many personal attacks and accusations were made about me on Coffee's page. How come that's ok? EChastain (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations, yes, attacks... not so much. Like I said I think it's best if you two just take a breather for now, and let others watch her behavior. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Coffee:, Why as an admin did you let that go on without comment on your talk page? You don't think that a whole discussion trying to prove I'm a sockpuppet isn't a personal attack? Really? When SPI filed in December, and illegally reopened a week or so later, was closed for lack of evidence? You don't see that as a persoal attack? It's being brought up repeatedly and that's ok? EChastain (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because most of it occurred while I wasn't paying attention to my talk page. The discussion definitely wasn't one that I would call productive, which is why I called RO out on it at the end. But, she still has yet to do something worthy of a block per policy. Once, and if, she crosses that line, it will be dealt with then. For now, the best you can do is stay away from commenting on her edits... unless they are blatantly disruptive. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do see some suspicions being voiced against you without evidence and it was certainly not my intention to suggest that is okay. I guess I am just asking you to be the bigger person in the hopes of deescalation. If this display of maturity on your part does alleviate these suspicions then please let me know and I will explain the requirement of evidence. Chillum 00:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum Well, you are defending these people who do this repeatedly. I'm not expecting any better from them, as this is their MO, but I had hoped to expect more of you. EChastain (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not defending anyone and I don't have a side in this little scuffle. It is a mistake to see this as an adversarial situation. I am not demanding you stay away from this user, I am asking you do it voluntarily. If you decide to step away then that will be seen to your credit, if the community ends up deciding you should stay away then you will not get any such credit. Chillum 00:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chastain, any chef will tell you that you can't unfry the egg. I think Chillum and Coffee are suggesting you turn down the flame so as not to burn yourself. Its good advice. Like you say, "They do it repeatedly". I have found that letting time pass is the best solution. . Buster Seven Talk 01:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. EChastain (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I mentioned you on Chillum's talkpage in case you weren't pinged try to stay from Rational or the topic of her is all is my advice. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Knowledgekid87, I asked you to stay off my page a long time ago. When EvergreenFir was harassing me, you can out of nowhere and chased her away. I was glad for that, but you continued to post on my page, telling me to put userboxes up and other nonsense, and eventually you was not welcomed and I requested that you stay away from my page. I mean it. I've never posted on your page. EChastain (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your edits on the page on UDDTs, much appreciated. Just one thing: you added as a source a dicussion thread on the SuSanA discussion forum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urine-diverting_dry_toilet#Sitting_or_squatting Whilst I love this forum (I moderate it), and would be tempted to do that myself, I don't think we are technically "allowed" to cite a forum post. That's why I would prefer the "citation needed" tag. I am pretty sure it would not too hard to find a reference to cite in that thread, but linking to the thread itself is probably not good practice. So I would say we should go back to "citation needed" or do a quick Google search to find a good citation. Or perhaps link to the website of that Squatty Potty, perhaps that is better. EvM-Susana (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EvM-Susana, I'm sorry about removing the "citation needed" tag. The link you mention was already there, but I didn't examine it as I should have. And you're right that forum posts are not considered reliable sources. I don't think the statement about "squatting" being a more healthy posture for defecating is controversial though. To me it's common knowledge, and on the Commons there are many images of posters and signs saying the same thing. But I'll look around for a source. Thanks for contacting me. EChastain (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've just been going through Category:Articles with missing files and I keep running it your work! Your breaking images all over the place! Such as 4 I fixed on Bosnia and Herzegovina, 1 on Bhikkhu. However after a 11 hour day it too late to find and fix the rest and some are still flagged on Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Mediterranean Sea. Please be careful. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I'm using a script that I thought was ok. It's the User:Cameltrader/Advisor script. So you're saying that it's not ok to use? I see it used quite regularly by others, so I'm wondering. Thanks, EChastain (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I'm not sure if something has changed recently that's upset the way certain tools work? I've been seeing a lot more of this sort of thing from even very experienced users (Top 100 most prolific editors), both with people using this script and using AWB. I've not used either so I don't really know why, or if its just a coincidence. I wish there was just a warning to editors when they accidentally introduce errors, but for now I think whatever helper tool you use you have to keep an eye that it's not trying to do silly things. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sustainable Sanitation Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GIZ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But noting you posted on Blofeld's talk page re Coffee's block of RationalObserver, I think it is important that any unblocking administrator consider the material that RationalObserver has removed from her talk page, such as my comment linked here. While she has that right, it is, nonetheless, to be noted that what I had to say is highly relevant: [11]. Montanabw^(talk) 02:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Montanabw, it makes it very difficult to piece together history, so there's a method to it. There are clueless editors who have no idea why the sudden block and think it came from nowhere when there were warnings on her page prior to the block. EChastain (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, too true, which is why I thought I'd alert some other people. Montanabw^(talk) 08:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ZhenFund, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IOT and TMT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi E, thank you for pinging me about the mention on LB's Talk page. I already feel like I have a "virtual stink" attached to me amongst the WP community because of my interaction with LB, so I'm just observing. Thanks for the heads up. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scalhotrod, me too. Completely understand. EChastain (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the ping you'll receive, I just made this edit [12] on the Evidence Talk page. It was clear from things already posted that Karanacs Talk page is being monitored by LB. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scalhotrod: [13] Due to this: pot stirrer EChastain (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could be useful: [14], [15]

Interesting, KK87 was not on my radar and never made the connection. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scalhotrod: He was a major defender of RO, and was involved in discussion of Coffee's block of RO.[16] until blocked by Ddstretch right after this comment to RO.[17] (Note comments below in that diff re Donner Party.[18] RO, of course, has deleted all this.) Unblocked the next day by same admin after promising to stop this sort of thing. He's a major pot stirrer, now re LB, frequent poster at ANI etc. He's now trying to stir up sh*t on User talk:Ddstretch. EChastain (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KK87 is far from being alone, this case is going to bring many out of hiding and/or just make themselves known. Speaking of which, who User doncram? They just posted "evidence" and its just commentary. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Scalhotrod:, I don't know anything about User doncram. Or his relationship with LB. A pro gun control editor? EChastain (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]