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 have archived the Kaffeeklatsch discussions that were here. All the brouhaha had died down. If it fires up again in the future, I'll take care of it then. Lightbreather (talk) 00:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
• When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisGualtieri, when I go to questia.com, it says my membership is cancelled. Can you reactivate it? Lightbreather (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightbreather: - Did it expire or something? It should not have been cancelled because it was free. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the mix-up was because I had a personal, trial membership, and when I cancelled that I actually cancelled this one instead. Lightbreather (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather, per the result of the discussion here at WP:AE, you and User:Eric Corbett are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other, broadly construed, per WP:IBAN. Although this discussion was held at WP:AE this is to be considered a Community sanction and any clarification requests or appeals should be made at WP:AN. Struck to replace with: This is a Discretionary Sanction that is an Arbitration Enforcement action under The GGTF decision as amended February 2015. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Zad68 01:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather, note that I amended the close to be an AE action as opposed to a Community Sanction. Zad68 01:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Zad68, for the notice, and since I am currently restricted to my own page, may I ask a question about my other IBAN. That is, would this be an "appropriate forum" for "addressing a legitimate concern about [that] ban itself"? Would an email be better? Lightbreather (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather, you're welcome to email me and I'll give you my level opinion, but it'll only be my opinion as I have no particular expertise or experience in evaluating IBANs. Zad68 01:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorised at WP:ARBGGTF, you are hereby prohibited from addressing, referring to, commenting on, or otherwise interacting with Sitush, whether or not by name. Violation of this restriction will result in blocks. You may appeal this restriction in accordance with the appeals procedure. This restriction is in place indefinitely. You have the standard exemption to seek enforcement against Sitush should you feel that he has misconducted himself towards you, though it would be wise to seek advice privately from an admin you trust first. The immediate reason for this sanction is your conduct towards Sitush in a recent AN thread, and the broader reason the long history of animosity between the two of you. Since Courcelles states that he has no objection to such, I considered re-blocking you but decided that it would be more punitive than preventative, and so imposed this in lieu of a re-block. I second Courcelles' sage advice to spend your Wikipedia time in the mainspace and not on the drama and internal politics where you seem to run into problems. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: will you be putting Sitush under equivalent sanctions? Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles might also consider this sage advice. He hasn't added content to an article since 17 January. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Lightbreather and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Karanacs (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, "involved" is not an issue in the arbitration, as it is not an administrative action. Any user could file it, and they are generally file by those who are involved with the other party. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lightbreather. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a named party, I thought I got 1,000 words. However, since I've been told that my opinion that Karanacs is involved doesn't matter for this action, can I just remove that? Lightbreather (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 1000 word limit for parties is for evidence; every preliminary statement is limited to 500 words. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can check your word count at http://wordcounttools.com/. Right now, your statement rates 1209 words although it is a bit fewer than that because diffs do not count. But you can consider your statement at at least twice the length that it should be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And what about questions? I have several unanswered questions there. Lightbreather (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, since this page is still on my watchlist and A/R/C has been for years ... you might want to focus your statement on why the arbs should or should not accept the case, what the case's scope should be, and/or why you want those specific editors listed as parties. For the most part, the actual "evidence" (who did what and when and the various claims and counter-claims) can wait for the for the case itself if or when it's accepted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what HJ Mitchell said is pretty sound advice for anyone who is involved with an ArbCom case request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lightbreather, my thanks for trimming your statement so promptly. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Lightbreather (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L235 could you please talk with arbitrators about giving me permission to have 1000 words for my statement? I am trying to convince them to add eight people as involved parties. After adding six to my statement I'm up to 800 words and I need room for two more. Considering how many people are lining up to "try" me (so to speak), and since Karanacs got 500 words to talk about me, I don't think this is asking too much. Lightbreather (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually have any authority to grant your request. However, I'll bring it to the arbitrators' attention. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L235, also, how do I ask for an arbitrator to recuse? Lightbreather (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Recusal_of_arbitrators, you may post a message on the arbitrator's talk page asking the arbitrator to recuse and giving reasons. Should the arbitrator not respond, or not recuse, the user may refer the request to the Committee for a ruling. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio declined[1] my request to recuse.[2] As clerk, can you refer my request to the Committee? I'm trying to conserve my words. Lightbreather (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Lightbreather, your statement extension request has been declined. The Committee has directed that I indicate clearly that the evidence phase may be used to submit a longer file of evidence. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Then I respectfully request that I have until Monday afternoon - say 19:00 UTC - to finish trimming and adding to my statement. Afterall, this is a record of the first step in what could be - if it goes forward as Karanacs proposed - a Lightbreather v. 7 Named But "Uninvolved" Parties - plus their Wikifriends. It is the birthday weekend of a direct family member, and I'd like not to have to spend all of it on this RFAR. (I've been working this morning on evidence about the last 2 of 8 editors whom I have suggested are involved, but my family is rousing from their beds so I'll be leaving my office soon.) Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your requests have been referred to the Committee. Please be aware that the Committee has already authorized the clerks to open the case at 17:52 UTC today, so if the Committee declines your latter request, the case will open at 17:52 UTC. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• An arbitrator has directed that I open the case and also has directed that I remind you that as the case request has been accepted, there's no need to be adding more material to the case request page., and that if you wish to add additional material they can do it in /Evidence. If there's additional parties they think should be here too, they can make their argument for this at /Evidence too, as parties can be added or removed from a case at any time. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that was me. Adding to the above, the case request stage is really to determine if there is a case, and if so what its general scope might be. The /Evidence stage is the best place to really get into the detail on individual parties. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lightbreather. I'm going to be one of the drafters. I've asked that the case dates (Workshop and Proposed decision) hinge around when we can get a 2nd drafter as I believe that there should be more than one drafter. I've come here to say that we had an extensive discussion about your recusal request, but that there has been no consensus that Salvio should recuse. Dougweller (talk) 09:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision in this case will be that Salvio be desysopped. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a sockpuppet investigation, as I believe Felsic to be your sockpuppet. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. Responded there. Ignore it, Lb. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the evidence that GRuban presented here, it appears I was incorrect. My apologies. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [3] caught my attention. Seeing it involves you, do what you like with it I don't feel like getting myself involved with the evidence phase. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I am telling editors who have an interaction ban with you (note that I might not finish this tonight as real life is occurring):

Editors banned from interacting with Lightbreather are reminded that the banning policy states that:

"if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:reply to editor Y in discussions or make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere onWikipedia, whether directly or indirectly".

This includes case talk pages. However, while the Committee allows editors some leeway to respond to statements about them on the evidence and workshop case pages, they may not participate in the case except to respond with statements about allegations that have been made about them and may not make direct communication. Such statements that they do make must be brief, to the point, and civil. Editors with interaction bans who fail to comply with the letter or spirit of this very limited exemption will be treated as though they breached the interaction ban.

This also applies to you, so I need to ask you to revise some of your evidence. If another editor (eg Karanacs) with whom you do not have an iban raises an issue concerning one of the editors with whom you do have an iban, you can of course respond to that. But you should not be submitting evidence about them directly, nor should they. Can I also remind you that if you wish to complain about violations of an iban, that WP:BANEX says you can ask "an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation)." Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs led her preliminary statement with links to my ibans and requests for ibans.[4] They're the backbone of her case that I'm a "battleground" editor. They were presented, essentially, as diffs, which "may be relied upon by arbitrators when drafting the proposed decision."[5] Can you please discuss this with the other arbitrators? Since I am the sole "defendant" in this case, gagging me this way hardly seems fair. I can't defend myself without addressing - in the appropriate place: the evidence page - the behaviors of others who contributed to the arrival of this case. Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also mentioned these editors in my preliminary statement, without being notified of objections by an arb or clerk. Lightbreather (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbreather You were duly notified yesterday and despite the notification you went on to post excessively detailed material about a mutually i-banned editor on the case talk page. We expect you to conduct yourself in the accordance with WP:BANEX and continued breaches of it may result in sanctions.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger beat me to it. I cannot understand why you would do this after being notified. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller I have to agree with LB on this point. The iBans themselves are being used as evidence against LB, she should be permitted to discuss (within reason) the circumstances that led to those ibans. Obviously this is a risky proposition for LB though, as rehashing old arguments could itself be seens as evidence of the battleground. A narrow path for her to weave, but she should be allowed to try. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, (this is also relevant for Lightbreather) this is how the applicable site policy (WP:BANEX) applies to this case. Karanacs (who is not i-banned) has posted material about Lightbreather in the case request and on the evidence page. Lightbreather may directly rebut Karanacs'evidence by posting on the /Evidence page. That may involve commenting on i-banned editors if they have been mentioned by Karanacs. Such rebuttals need to be succinct, to the point, and use links instead of direct quotes. Any i-banned editor who is mentioned in Lightbreather's rebuttal may, in turn, rebut the allegations made by Lightbreather, but only on the /Evidence page. Commentary about mutually i-banned editors on talk pages is explicitly prohibited. Thus, everyone gets a full opportunity to rebut allegations. But no one gets the opportunity to raise dozens of interesting new issues. No one gets the opportunity to launch ad hominem attacks, cast aspersions and what not, or engage in slanging matches. What's not to like?  Roger Davies ^talk 07:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lightbreather. The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence by parties be kept to around 1000 words and 100 diffs. Your presentation is over 2700 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask, on May 5.[6] Can you remind the arbs, please? Lightbreather (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have trimmed and trimmed it, and I cannot trim any more. Lightbreather (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, your request was not granted. You are free to ask again on the evidence talk page. In the meantime, your evidence is at 270% of the limit; please trim it. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a little rest, and I'll give it one more try, though I don't believe I can put up a proper defense in 1000 words. Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A member of this committee has closed the SPI that I opened, commenting that the evidence was "vastly insufficient to support a sockpuppetry claim." [35] Part of the reason that I presented my evidence there is that I thought it quite convincing. I respectfully ask the whole committee to consider the evidence, rather than have the decision made by one arbitrator, whose answer at SPI indicates that they have already made up their mind about me.

Lightbreather, I don't think you are stupid or incompetent, but this comment tells me you should stay away from Wikipedia for a while. Seven different editors commented on the quality of the evidence you offered at the SPI and all agreed that it was quite possibly the worst evidence they had ever seen in the history of SPI. For you to think this lack of evidence is "quite convincing" tells me you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evidence is in this context and how it works. If you would like to correct your error, I would recommend finding a checkuser you trust and have them walk you through the entire process. That would be a good way for you to learn why what you think is "quite convincing" is in fact, non-evidence. Other heuristics that will greatly help improve your thinking include Occam's razor and the concept of falsifiability. There's also the general idea of a "sniff test", which Wiktionary defines as "an informal reality check of an idea or proposal, using one's common sense or sense of propriety". I don't think you lack common sense or propriety, but you do seem to get carried away in the moment and do things without thinking them through. Next time, take a deep breath, apply Occam's razor, attempt to falsify your hypothesis, and sniff it (metaphorically speaking) for soundness. If you had truly done this, you would have never proposed the SPI in the first place. Try not to act on every thought that comes into your head. Remember, humans have a reputation for excelling at pattern recognition. Erroneous pattern matching can often be categorized as Type I and type II errors. In your favor, Michael Shermer argues that there are survival benefits to forming beliefs based on erroneous pattern matching.[7] The point is to know when your brain is doing this and to filter accordingly. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was already proved last night that at least one editor whom I have suspected of being a sock is a sock. I didn't slap my evidence together; it took a lot of time. And no-one has given details about why the evidence that I gave for Gaijin42/Godsy is "insufficient"[38] or not "solid" enough.

Lightbreather, you suspected EChastain of being Sue Rangell, but the account was blocked for being a likely sock of Mattisse not Sue Rangell. As for your evidence, many editors on the SPI gave you explicit details why your evidence against Godsy and Gaijin was insufficient, so your claim that they didn't is quite disturbing. Here are five diffs from one user alone giving you explicit details.[8] If you continue to engage in this kind of denial you're probably going to end up banned. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]