User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Civility and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Thread at BHG User Page

I closed the thread opened by Investigator Fred at BHG's user page, because, on review, he is an illegitimate alternate account (a kind of sockpuppet). I don't know who the puppeteer is, but that doesn't matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Your user space

Are you aware that User:Jim-Siduri has posted a long 'proposal' in your user space? [1] He is currently being discussed at WP:ANI, and the posting was mentioned there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I was not aware. I figured I'd get a notice about any edits in my user space not made by me. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Lightbreather (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - the notification system doesn't apply to user subpages by default - presumably because they didn't expect anyone but the user in question to be creating them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed it before I was aware of this discussion as I didn't see why he should be using that page without notifying/asking you - put it back if you want, but please make sure the __NOINDEX__ template stays there. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Hi LB, would you mind not inserting your replies into the middle of my comment? We should keep the threaded format by having your answers below my post. If you'd like I give you permission to add numbers to the questions in my post for easy reference but please do not edit my post beyond that. Thank you. 208.76.111.243 (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I won't be answering any more, as I explained, so it shouldn't be a problem. Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree. The area is now hopelessly muddled to any third party as to who is speaking. Beyond that, you've effectively modified my comment which is not allowed. Please move your comments to the proper place per convention and policy. Thank you 208.76.111.243 (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

jeez

		A beer on me!
		Looks like you've had a rough time at things, you could use this.Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Gads, Mike. Good thing I'm not sitting on a stool, or I might have fallen off of it. (Being vertically challenged, it happens a bit.) Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone who agrees with you is a friend. Not everyone who disagrees is an enemy. :)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Twitter campaign

If you really want to get the ball rolling, contact @AbbyMartin on Twitter. If you can present your ideas in a coherent manner, she might even have you on her television show to talk about sexism. She also does the MediaRoots podcast with her brother, where you could talk about sexism on Wikipedia in an audio format. She's discussed her own problems with her Wikipedia article quite a bit on her show and on her Twitter feed. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Another young woman who has been leading the battle against sexism is @mollycrabapple on Twitter. In addition to being one of the finest young American artists, she's also a writer for Vice magazine. You should contact her as well. She recently gave attention to an incident that happened to a female journalist.[2] Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And don't forget about @AFilipacchi on Twitter. I'm sure she would be very interested in helping to get the word out considering what she had to go through on Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Clicked through (to Balkanist Magazine) and ended up on this essay, with this paragraph, which I completely identify with as a female Wikipedia editor:

Women aren't universally excluded, aren't universally harassed and oppressed at all times in every interpersonal interaction – nor are we a homogenous unit of 'women' who all have the same background or reaction to a situation. But this moment seemed a manifestation of the particular dynamic of women being 'let in' to male-dominated spaces on the condition they prove they’re cool by throwing other women under the bus – or on the provision that they don't 'make drama'.

Actually, the paragraph that follows it is pretty applicable, too. Lightbreather (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I just checked out your Twitter feed; nice work! Keep up the pressure and build up the momentum. Don't let up and don't give up! :) Viriditas (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"ISP"

Hey, just a friendly note: "ISP" stands for Internet Service Provider. A user who is not logged in edits as an "IP," short for "Internet Protocol address." betafive 05:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Doh! I know that and have used the correct term "IP" in the past but obviously spaced out today. Thanks for the reminder.  :-) Lightbreather (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A Helping Hand

I've noticed your name on all sorts of noticeboards lately. If there is anything I can help you with or give you a neutral, third-party view on, let me know. I want to try an help someone I see clearly trying to build the encyclopedia :-) ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 06:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

An arbitration case request in which you were named as a party has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators views on hearing this matter, found here, may be useful. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

COI

Lightbreather, you have a massive conflict of interest with this article [Gender bias on Wikipedia] given your recent vociferous forum shopping, your recent Twitter feed etc. Please be careful. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There is also this. I'm not sure why you decided to mention that all but one of the people whom you were in conflict with were male but that's what you did and you seemed to think that it was significant enough to mention. I'm hoping that you can continue to edit this thing neutrally but I'd be lying if I said that I'm expecting it. There seems to be a chip on the shoulder for some reason and such things tend not to be conducive to neutral editing. So, yes, please be careful. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Please AGF and let's take it a day at a time, OK? I am a trained writer, and that means I know how to right for different audiences and purposes. Everyone on Wikipedia has biases, but that doesn't matter as long as we edit for NPOV. Please see the section I just started below. Perhaps we can work together on the Research findings section? Lightbreather (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, it is difficult to AGF with someone on an article such as this when they have emphasised that they have an issue with male editors and an anti-Wikipedia position. I have the same difficulty with quite a few of those who are involved with Wikipediocracy and also edit here, so it isn't something that is entirely personal to you. Basically, they are being hypocritical (in my view) and it seems ripe for problems. Toss in the fact that you've got a record for tendentiousness and a topic ban, and I've got a bad feeling about this, sorry. For that reason, I'm better off staying out of it until you go elsewhere. Do your worst, as they say, and I'll hope that others keep an eye on it. I'm un-watchlisting it now. - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't make you change your mind, but I don't have an issue with all male editors, just some male editors. And I don't have an anti-Wikipedia position, except that I think Wikipedia ought to enforce its civility policies. In fact, I have an issue with editors - male or female - who dismiss civility. Especially those who not only dismiss it, but who say there shouldn't even be a civility policy. If you want to talk with me about this, could we take it to my talk page or yours? Lightbreather (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW: I was topic-banned for edit warring with another editor on specific material in a specific article. We were both topic-banned. As for the "tendentious" thing, there are about a half-dozen editors who don't like me who like to toss that word around - but they never provide evidence, so I'd prefer it if you'd not use it. It's amazing what a handful of editors can do to one's reputation just by repeating things over and over, without evidence. Lightbreather (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would also say that I disagree with the assessment of some that I was forum shopping. I followed the directions given on various pages about how to handle certain situations. So let's agree to disagree on that. I would also ask you to carefully read WP:COI. Part of my push right now for civility is for people to consider that some things can come across as personal attacks, so we all ought to think carefully before we label others or others' edits. As I wrote on my user page, I do not edit on behalf of any person or group, nor do I speak on behalf of any person or group. I edit as a hobby - not for pay. The following part of COI applies to me - and to every other WP editor, including yourself:

Biased editing -Conflict of interest is not simply bias. Beliefs and desires alone do not constitute a conflict of interest. On Wikipedia, a person's beliefs and desires may lead to biased editing, but biased editing can occur in the absence of a conflict of interest.

Lightbreather (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

We are all biased but unless the policies change nothing precludes LB's interactions here, when things are significant POV we can revert but to be disqualified based on her opinion only is not the right path to work collaboratively. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Posting off wiki, I avoid more harassment by not doing it on specific topics, only in general terms encouraging people to edit if they seem to have the requisite skills and temperment. However, this ANI is an example of some who kept ridiculing an individual's editing off wiki and got away with it. If I remember correctly, your tweets were vs. wikipedia institutions and processes. However, I have kept this posting on that thread from Jayen466 which every now and them makes me want to wax creative in criticism of some editors. Would have to see what the guy in that ANI got away with. But over all, more trouble than it's worth.

Criticizing the quality of an editor's work, whether here or elsewhere, is not harassment. This is not a private project, but a public one, with a significant impact on public life. Any such public project should be prepared to be criticised. If someone writes nonsense in a science article read and relied on by a million people a year, that is a matter of public interest, just like stories like this, this, this, this or this. If you would like to curtail editors' freedom to speak out about Wikipedia's failings in public, this in itself will be a media story, and rightly so. Such ideas belong to places like Azerbaijan and North Korea. [[User:Jayen466|Andreas]] <small><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|JN]]</font>[[Special:Contributions/Jayen466|466]]</small> 19:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)'

Just an FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate forum for discussing COI

I think editors have been around long enough to know that Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest first sentence reads: If an editor directly discloses information that clearly demonstrates that he or she has a COI as defined in this guideline or has made one or more paid contributions as per the Terms of Use, raise the issue with the editor in a civil manner on the editor's Talk page, citing this guideline.... COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content. Since this isn't an allegation of paid editing, it additionally reads: If an editor edits in a way that leads you to believe that he or she might have a conflict of interest or might have made one or more paid contributions, remember to assume good faith...

This whole section should be moved to her talk page or just hidden. It's just harassment at this point. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

topic bans and userspace.

I have just received some clarification about content in userspace, and topic bans. As a result I have made several requests to delete old pages in my userspace in the Gun Control area. You may wish to do the same as I believe you also have quite a bit of stuff saved up. I recommend making offline copies for the duration of your ban.

User_talk:Seraphimblade#Arbcom_clarification_clarification in particular Seraphimblade's comment that "Keeping stuff related to the subject in userspace that's not immediately needed probably isn't the greatest idea" Gaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I did the same thing when I had a topic ban. Better safe than sorry. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)