User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 16

Question
, am I allowed to post here on my talk page? Lightbreather (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


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

Other question
A question for

Considering EChastain's: 1. Account activity was opened on October 13, 2014 (the day after I announced that I was quitting); 2. Declared background in psychology; 3. Early interest in the GGTF ArbCom (a case in which I presented evidence); 4. Editing Robert Spitzer (one of nine consecutive edits) 11 days into her WP history; 5. Comments at the GGTF ArbCom talk pages directed at me; ("massive freaking out"), ("massively disruptive") 6. Comments ("push a POV") and style/choice of words ("drop in the ocean") on her talk page; 7. Timing and style of her recent comments/edits on my talk page (She had never before edited my talk page);

8. Insisting that other editors not post on her talk page (Details below); 9. Use of "sigh" in edit summaries (Evidence below); 10. Accusations of ownership (Will add evidence below).

Who do you think she might be (edited as previously)? (I have one other bit of behavior/evidence that I can add, but I will only share it privately with LR, NYB, or TP, so as not to "out" myself.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's actually pretty convincing. Looking at the first 15 of EChastain's contribs, they appear to have specifically been aimed at achieving autoconfirmed status so they could edit the semi-protected GGTF Arbcom case page.  I think that's strong enough evidence for a checkuser.--v/r - TP 19:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Details, per request of EC2 (as opposed to EC which is used often for Eric Corbett).
2. EChastain's declared background in psychology;
 * The first version of Sue Rangell's user page said, "she specializes in the fields of educational psychology and educational technology." (emphasis mine)

4. EChastain's editing Robert Spitzer (one of nine consecutive edits) 11 days into her WP history.
 * On January 12, 2014, Sue Rangell followed me to Robert Spitzer (political scientist) within an hour of my first edit there and proceeded to battle with me, the BLP subject, and other editors over the article for five days. After, she went on a mission to remove source citations to Spitzer in numerous articles, and returned to his article on July 31 to label him in the same way she was pushing in January.
 * Eleven days into her WP editing career, EChastain edited Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist). In light of the topic of one of her first 12 edits strongly suggests this is more than a coincidence. (Again, if whomever is conducting the SPI contacts me privately, I will give more details - but I cannot do do here.)
 * On January 25, 2014, during the long Robert Spitzer (political scientist) dispute, Sue Rangell moved all but the first sentence of Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist) lead into a new first section titled "New York City."
 * When EChastain edited Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist), her first four edits were to the lead and the "New York City" section.

6. Is related to this comment by EChastain at the GGTF ArbCom: "I think most editors posting here or on GGTF are 'a good person' (e.g.Lightbreather). But that doesn't mean they can't be massively disruptive on wikipedia, or that they have the competence required."
 * I felt that including my name in the statement looked like she considered me "massively disruptive" or incompetent. (I mean, would her comment have lost any meaning if she'd left out the parenthetical? Why include my name?) So I asked her privately if she would refactor the comment, which she would not do. In the discussion - on her talk page, Request, please - she gave her explanation using language that was very typical of Sue Rangell when she wasn't being openly accusatory, and added "[taking] the remarks of others too personally," and POV pushing to the list of things that she did "not" say about me. (POV pushing, especially "civil POV pushing," was one of Sue Rangell's repeated allegations against me, rarely with evidence. Also, Sue Rangle was prone to exaggeration. It wasn't enough to say someone was disruptive; they would be characterized as things like "massively" disruptive.) Examples of Sue Rangell style (CAPS), tone, exaggerating, "not" saying things.

7. EChastain's timing and style in her recent comments here on my talk page.
 * I was notified by an admin of my block at 08:26, 30 November 2014. I pinged the notifying admin, asking a question. The first person to "respond," 90 minutes later, was editor EChastain, with a link to the Guide to appealing blocks (which was already in the notice, so it was offering nothing new in the way of helpful information, or the answer to my specific question (that I could see, anyway). And she ended with the comment, "I do so wish you'd taken my advice given when you posted on my talk."
 * Soon after, she added a snarky opening comment, plus a "suggestion" that I read the Five pillars!
 * Six minutes later she added "Please, please" to the beginning of the sentence that told me what I should read, plus a warning.
 * Five minutes later, she deleted what she'd just added.
 * In the next minute, she deleted the snarky opening like she'd added 12 minutes earlier.

8. One of Sue Rangell's earliest and most emphatic requests of me was that I not post on her talk page.
 * Note EChastain insisting that another editor not post on her talk page.

9. Both Sue Rangell and EChastain use "sigh" in edit summaries. (Yes, other editors insert this into comments, but not many that I've encountered.)

I see that you copied some of my responses to EChastain's request for more detail about the observations I made originally. However, I have since updated this "Detail, per request" section. Of course, I am stuck here on my talk page, but if it doesn't break any rules, could you copy the updated observations to the SPI page? Oh! And Sue Rangell's AE Warning, if permitted and it isn't already there. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have copied the statements, but not the AE, as it is not relevant to an SPI imo. I really suggest you stop now, as the marginal return on additional statements is low, and you run higher risk of being seen as casting WP:ASPERSIONS or being disruptive, especially as this may be seen as a case of not dropping the WP:STICK from the arbcom case itself. I was tempted not to copy parts of your statement above, because some of them are essentially "both users said things about me I don't like" which is pretty weak as evidence. The Spitzer thing was what tripped my trigger initially, but being a completely different Spitzer turns it into an odd coincidence rather than evidence to me. In any case, I repeat my suggestion to let it go, either people are convinced she is a WP:DUCK or not at this point. For you, either go back into retirement or sit out your block, return and try to move on. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments by others

 * EChastain was definitely the harasser who got me most upset at Arbitration talk. Open an SPI and I might be energized to provide evidence of who it might be of several past or existing editors who come to mind. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


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


 * I seem to remember a complaint about discussing other editors on a talkpage without notifying them..Lightbreather I'm sure you remember User:Scalhotrod and the complaints you made over his discussion on his talkpage, to that end I have notified User:EChastain of this thread. I hope you are wrong in your findings but the timeline presented would probably warrant a test if a proper master can be located. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think I can do anything about it. I'm scared just to be editing my own talk page. (EChastain suggested I could only use my talk page to appeal my block.) Will someone else start a checkuser? Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a violation of WP:EVADE but if you have a master editor chosen with evidence I will start it. It's not fair if other people are allowed to continue socking and you raise a very valid point about the editing history that can't easily be explained away.. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've started a case at Sockpuppet_investigations/Sue_Rangell.--v/r - TP 20:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that it was declined almost immediately as "Stale," whatever the heck that means! The harassment isn't "stale"! At any rate, TP, I have shared some personal information about myself that is relevant to this and I am giving you permission to share that with an SPI functionary, if it will help. Lightbreather (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Stale means the technical data is too old to be useful. Sue hasn't edited recently enough for a conclusive match to be made.  Regardless, I think a case on behavioral evidence can be made without divulging your personal information.--v/r - TP 21:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no need to fear editing your user page. And the tell-tale signs that EChastain is not new to editing Wikipedia are clear, to very experienced Wikipedia editors at least. Another example of EChastain's not-newness is the fact that EChastain created the EChastain user page (timestamped 16:23, 18 October 2014‎) soon after creating the EChastain account, for reasons that non-new Wikipedia editors do so. In other words, a blue-linked user page is a very powerful psychological Wikipedia tool. If someone wants to make the Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet argument, which is usually a poor argument, then whatever. If WP:CheckUsers decline to use the WP:CheckUser software to investigate EChastain because of their "we don't fish" vow, then that's too bad. There is credible evidence to suspect EChastain of WP:Sockpuppetry. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * User:TParis WP:Cleanstart doesn't actually prohibit returning to older edit areas it suggests it isn't smart to do so because the link will be made. A couple questions are we saying this person quit in august to start editing again as a sock just for the arbcom case? On what basis or threshold would we look at as evasion of scrutiny just to participate in this case? I'm asking because of the differences in blocks here and how they are related policy wise? The evidence is actually there to at least say it's not a new editor and the evidence can be suggestive that it is indeed Sue Rangel but I'm curious was she evading sanctions? Has she commented with both accounts in some way with this dispute? I note they haven't denied it yet either so maybe it's a cleanstart account that is caught and no idea how to proceed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hell in a Bucket (and others), please see the AE Warning on Sue Rangell's talk page. Lightbreather (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a stretch to say she was evading sanctions but it could be I'm not totally familiar with that background. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In its lead, for reasons that it notes, WP:Clean start currently prohibits that a returning editor with a new account returns to the same editing space. It's looser with that language lower on the page, but it should be consistent with it; and I mean consistent with the "don't return to the same area" aspect, unless, of course, the problematic behavior, if there was any, has truly improved and it is valid for that editor to return to the same editing area that he or she edited before. WP:Clean start is clear that the clean start is supposed to be an actual clean start. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Flyer, the SPI says no CU because the evidence is stale. I'm sure you don't want to call User:Rschen7754 a liar; no one has said that CU was declined because it is a fishing operation. It's clear that this case should be decided on behavioral evidence: you know, or should know, that this happens all the time. Lightbreather, I'm disappointed to see you blocked for this reason, and even more disappointed to realize--just now--that this was you. Using "privacy" as an argument for this kind of edit is completely lame and I have no respect for it. I reverted that one edit, but could have reverted more: it is clear that this was some unwise, petty, vengeful crusade. And to find out that it was you? Bleh. Someone suggested privately it was you and I said no way; I suppose I should apologize to that person. I have stood up for you and stuck out my neck for you more than once, and I believe you are intelligent enough to imagine what this feels like. But then, what does that matter, right, in this quest for the greater good of having this one guy blocked. Also, if there is an MfD for that sandbox of yours, I will support deletion, since the insinuations there are a bit revolting. But that's all by the by and I have very little interest in discussing anything else with you anymore, though I do want to ask you one probably rhetorical question: do you really think that getting Eric and maybe Sitush banned will mean anything at all for Wikipedia's gender problems? Drmies (talk) 21:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Flyer saw my first edit which I reverted because I missed the target. That was my fault and I tried to correct it quickly but not quickly enough it seems. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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

Your behavioral evidence is certainly suggestive/persuasive, but as others have said the CU data on Sue is stale. In any case, CU is unfortunately quite limited in reality, and only catches fairly naive socks. Anyone with technical skill or who wants to keep their master around can fairly easily evade it. Your evidence may be enough for a WP:DUCK block the same as the one that caught you. As for the other IPs, while its a fair assumption that they are also logged out users, their comments are not as (frequent? extensive?) as the ip linked to you and there isn't an obvious "master" based on location (except the two in the UK perhaps). As for what you are allowed to post while blocked, I think you are getting fairly deep into the grey area here, and I have seen others lose talk page access for similar posts, so I would perhaps recommend backing down, especially if you want to try to appeal your block, or if you are named as a party to the case (which seems unlikely at this point) and want to ask for any evidence/testimony to be copied to that page. As I learned from my own ArbCom experience (through my own mistakes), it seems best to focus on one's own behavior and WP:NOTTHEM. One place to start I think would be an explicit admission or denial of using that IP. You previously said "did not abuse multiple accounts" etc, which sounds like equivocating and that you could be the IP but think it wasn't violating policy. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Various prolific, non-naive WP:Sockpuppet masters have been caught by WP:CheckUsers, including in cases where the WP:CheckUser kept account/computer information on them past the time frame that would be considered stale, and I have seen some WP:CheckUsers that are better with the WP:CheckUser tool than others. Flyer22 (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Some more questions
Your evidence that I'm a sockpuppet is as follows:

Considering EChastain's:
 * Account activity was opened on October 13, 2014 (the day after I announced that I was quitting);
 * Response My registration date: 20:23:09 12/10/2014. That's before you announced you were quitting. (Was I psychic?)


 * Declared background in psychology;
 * Response How is a doctorate in Psychology evidence that I'm a sockpuppet?


 * Early interest in the GGTF ArbCom (a case in which I presented evidence);
 * Response - how may editors were interested earlier than me?


 * Editing Robert Spitzer (one of nine consecutive edits) 11 days into her WP history;
 * Response - so what? What does that have to do with you?


 * Comments at the GGTF ArbCom talk pages directed at me; ("massive freaking out"), ("massively disruptive")
 * Response Those comments were not directed at you, as I explained to you each time you posted on my talk.


 * Comments ("push a POV") and style/choice of words ("drop in the ocean") on her talk page;
 * Response "push a POV" and "drop in the ocean" in a response to a post of yours on my talk - how is that evidence I'm a sockpuppet?


 * Timing and style of her recent comments/edits on my talk page (She had never before edited my talk page);


 * Response - I posted to urge you just to address the reason for your unblock request, and not post other stuff, as the best way to get unblocked. I made a couple of added helpful hints, but then reversed myself twice when I saw you had already made the request. So that shows ... what? So trying to help you is bad? And makes me a sockpuppet?

Please explain how these relate. EChastain (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I've removed any userboxes from my user page that reveal anything remotely personal about me. I see these are used against registered editors. I only put them there because suggested them to me on my talk page. Big mistake! Better to be an IP. EChastain (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hatted section of my responses to Lightbreather's behavioural evidence that I (EChastain) am a sockpuppet
Since my response to Lightbreather's behavioural evidence have been hatted (or habbed), making it pretty much inaccessible, I've copied the whole thing to Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell Please tell me what the procedures are now. Is there anything further I should do? EChastain (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I presented my evidence above, upon which a case was opened. If you want more details, EC2, then I will put some above, but it may not be quick as I am sick today and have a fever. Lightbreather (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Key evidence that Sue Rangell has a puppet account
I have presented elsewhere evidence of why I believe is a puppet for Sue Rangell. The best evidence that I've disclosed publicly seems to be getting lost in the weaker (but still noteworthy) evidence. Discussions seem to be focused on the weaker evidence and paying little to no attention to the better evidence. So, to make the better/best evidence clear:


 * Sue Rangell edited both the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) and the Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist) articles.


 * EChastain did not edit the former, but she edited the latter in a manner that was an extension of the edit Sue Rangell made to that article.

Look at this: Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist) revision history (short list)

AE Warning
In July, Sue Rangell received a warning, with these related comments:
 * I see a higher-than-acceptable level of personal animosity in the edits by Sue Rangell in evidence, and I would warn Sue Rangell that she may be made subject to sanctions if she continues to focus on contributors rather than content in this manner
 * I would warn Sue Rangell as Sandstein suggests
 * I find some of Sue Rangell's comments disturbing

New, personal evidence
And finally, early in my active WP editing career, I found myself under attack - possibly tag-teamed - on an article talk page. I reached out to a few uninvolved editors to see if one would volunteer to help to cool things down. The first one to respond was Sue Rangell, but she didn't cool things down. She joined the gang. In desperation, I sent her an email. However, at that time - naively - I had associated my WP account with an email address that was not dedicated to WP business. I think she used my email address to research my real-life identity.

If she did discover my real-life ID, then Sue Rangell knows that I have a personal connection to a place that was the topic of the very first article EChastain edited after creating her account.

I think it very unlikely that these connections - articles about two Robert Spitzers, plus one place - out of 4.6 million articles in the English Wikipedia, are mere coincidence.

I have more, but I will reveal no more publicly. If a functionary contacts me, I will be more than happy to reply privately.

--Lightbreather (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ANi for outing or attempting to out Sue Rangell
[] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I asked for oversight at 16:45 UTC. Lightbreather (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

OK,, but I assume that's just FYI, and that I'm not allowed to participate since I'm under house arrest, so to speak, right? Lightbreather (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you to Gaijin42 for suggesting that my talk page be semi-protected, and to for acting on the suggestion. Lightbreather (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've closed the above ANI thread with a note that your edit summary falls within WP:OUTING and is grounds for a further block. For info my close comment is here. On balance and after reviewing the context, I think a warning is sufficient. But please don't do this again. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

SPI closed
The recent SPI against Sue Rangell has been closed by Jehochman. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)