User talk:Lightbreather/Archive 18

Fat quarters and eighths
Following on from the AfD, I've added a new section Yard. Pam D  11:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

PC Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Female/Feminist Perspective might be helpful in this Meta Rfc
Hi, LB, and Happy New Year to you.

I suggested at this Request For Comment here on Meta that it might benefit from Female/Feminist input. Besides your own early contribution (for which you have my thanks), two other overt feminists, CarolmooreDC and Neotarf, put in significant input at the debate's earlier forum (here), and CarolmooreDC helped implement its now disputed decisions in several locations, but CarolmooreDC and Neotarf are no longer with us, so I was wondering if you might perhaps wish to at least consider giving a feminist perspective instead of them? There may be other feminists already contributing there, but this is not entirely clear (at least not to me). But obviously if you feel it would be too much hassle, or whatever, please ignore this request.

Incidentally, I had contributed to earlier versions of the debate (first here, and then here and here), but I was not even aware of the renewed debate until its conclusions (which I mostly support) got disputed 2 months later, and in any case I am in no position to give a female or a feminist perspective, since I am neither female nor a feminist (as distinct from an occasional sympathizer with some parts of the feminist perspective on a case-by-case basis).Tlhslobus (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, LB. Tlhslobus (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Samantha Bayarr
Hi, I got your name off the Teahouse hosts page. Would you be able to help User:Samantha Bayarr? It has to do with edits to Amish romance. If you think they are OK and that I was over zealous in removing stuff then I'm fine with that. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Possible canvassing
Hello Lightbreather. I was looking at your contributions and you seem to have sent the same IdeaLab to a good amount of people, and that doing this seems to have the visual representation of canvassing. There doesn't seem to be a pattern on the amount of people that you are notifying. Are these people from the gender gap wikiproject? Great, just do a small notification there. However, single notification to all those editors seems to be violating WP:VOTESTACKING and is also mass posting. I would appreciate it that if you stop doing this, as even if it isn't canvassing it leads to the imagery of canvassing and is just in general, inappropriate. Tutelary (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read what you wrote and started a related discussion on my idea proposal discussion page. If you have more to say, please take it there. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, LB. It looks like you are suspected of being 'guilty' of being open, honest, and transparent, which seems to be a mortal sin in Wikipedia :) Maybe next time you should do as common sense suggests most or all of the other Wiki-factions probably do (although obviously, this is inherently incapable of either proof or disproof, and me even speculating about it is doubtless a deplorable violation of everything from WP:AGF and WP:CABAL perhaps even all the way to Wikipedia's First Commandment), and just send your friends and allies Private Messages either through Wikipedia's own Private Message system, or through private e-mails outside of Wikipedia altogether, or maybe through some Facebook page, or Yahoo Discussion Group (or whatever), in which only your favourite WikiFeminists are invited to participate. (Incidentally, that of course rules me out since I've already mentioned previously that I'm not a feminist, as distinct from an occasional sympathiser). If you or any other WikiFeminist were to do so (probably preferably without my knowledge, and on the admittedly not-especially-likely assumption that you and/or other WikiFeminists haven't done so already), I'd wish you the best of luck if I could (though this would presumably be impossible as I wouldn't know about it), though you might be advised to check with Wikilawyers before openly admitting to perpetrating such a possible Wikisin and/or Wikicrime, "as even if it isn't canvassing it" might lead "to the imagery of canvassing and" might be "just in general, inappropriate". Oh dear, I wonder will I now be banned for life (or even worse) after being found 'guilty' of being open, honest, and transparent (not to mention the possibly even worse Wikicrime of openly taking Wikipedia's Gender Equality objectives seriously instead of merely paying lip service to them) by writing this here instead of sending it to you by Private Message?. Regards, and best of luck. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your sarcasm is not appreciated. The canvassing guideline is very clear about mass notifications and notifications and messages sent to only one side of the argument. What I see in Lightbreather's messaging is that she's informing only women about the notification, and not only that, but I can't discern where she's getting this list. Is she just going throughout the entire category of 'Women wikipedians' and notifying them? There are far more within that category and it also seems she was going through alphabetical order in that, so that can't be it. So where is she getting this list to notify? Again, it just appears that it's possible she's informing people she knows will !vote the way she wants in that proposal. Additionally, since general arbcom sanctions are active for the gender gap in general, this could be a violation if it's indeed canvassing. Tutelary (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to call it sarcasm or anything else if you want. As far as I'm concerned what I said was basically the self-evident truth (apart from some mild and doubtless foolish attempts at slightly surreal humor), so I prefer to call it truth, honesty, and realism. But in any case I wasn't talking to anybody except LB. And if she's in violation, it's a violation of a somewhat absurd and unenforceable law, since all she has to do is canvas by Private message/e-mail, etc, probably just like every other faction (and as I expect I would do myself if I ever felt the need to join some faction), which is presumably what she will do from now on if she wants to do any more canvassing. Similarly you and I are arguably both currently also in violation of another somewhat absurd and unenforceable law (WP:AVOIDYOU), since you said 'your' and I said 'you'. It all seems just another part of the absurdity that is such an integral part of Wikipedia's consensus system of government which makes it almost impossible to get rid of foolish rules. But anyway I've no wish to pursue this discussion with you any further, for fear of unnecessarily risking escalating a pointless dispute. So provided any reply you care to make is not unduly provocative, I propose to quit this discussion, leaving you to avail of the opportunity to have the last word should you wish to do so. Regards, farewell, and have a nice day. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be off site canvassing, and could be even worse in terms of violations of the policy. Also, it may be seen as attempting to game the system. Tutelary (talk) 08:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, LB, where is your above-mentioned idea proposal page? (Note: I composed and then added my above comment before noticing your above reply to Tutelary).Tlhslobus (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
I am appreciative.

--FeralOink (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Consult
Is insulting a religion counted as personal attack to the followers of that religion? How about if some one insult the religion in whole? such as saying: "I don't care about your beliefs about degenerate religious thinking!" or "all religious texts are fictional". Mhhossein (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think to belittle someone because of their religious belief - or because they're atheist or agnostic - is rude, but I'm not sure why you're asking me. My opinion on the matter doesn't carry special weight here. Lightbreather (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Background Usually I don't mind what people's religion are, but when you use it as a tactic to disrupt Wikipedia, you lose all entitlement to pretend to be insulted. Wikipedia exists to disseminate knowledge. Not to support the Iranian dictatorship or any other church-state.--Anders Feder (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to know your opinion because you have regarded "No personal attacks" as one of your favorites. As you see, I meant to consult you! Oh thanks Anders Feder for participating the discussion. He made it easier now! Mhhossein (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion
to add the category "Female Wikipedian" to my user page. I have done this. Kmccook (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Nowiki
Instead of using a nowiki tag, place a colon in front of the category part of a cat link. like this It will link to a category without adding the page to it. The same works for files. I hope this helps -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I assumed there was a way to do it, but if I ever knew how, I'd forgotten. Lightbreather (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. I have to look it up every few months to figure out how to do it for some discussion or another. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Tban
Hey, are you completely sure that its over? I left a message for Callanecc to confirm its expiration, but I'd hate for either of us to blow it by one day or just hours. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Our notices were dated July 14 and were for six months, so unless Wikipedia has some non-standard definition of what constitutes six months, I should think the ban is over. If not, I hope the powers that be assume good faith on my part. Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough, that's how I arrived a the January 15 date that I posted on my Talk page. But with various editors in various time zones and such, you never know how someone is going to interpret something. I'd rather be safe than sorry.
 * So AGF, nice edits on the Gun Show Loophole article. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * Thanks, Scal. Lightbreather (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Kaffeeklatsch request to close
Nice idea, but not at Wikipedia. Things are going reasonably well at the moment, so why erect a target to inflame the situation? Please close it down before the inevitable WP:MFD because those pages cannot be reconciled with standard procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, I disagree. Lightbreather (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the Kaffeklatsch is a good idea, too. &mdash; kikichugirl  speak up! 01:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the idea of the Kaffeeklatsch. --Thnidu (♂) (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Kaffeeklatsch pledge
Hi Lightbreather, I left this comment on the Kaffeeklatsch page, but I haven't signed the pledge yet, so I've moved it here. Sorry about that.

I noticed that the Systers email list asks subscribers to confirm "that you are a woman". Perhaps it's best to leave it there, and people will identify with that statement or not. I wouldn't include the issue of user preferences being set to she, sexual orientation, or whether someone has joined a certain category. I can't see that those matter for this. Just my opinion. Sarah (SV) (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , I hope that my "Response" below explains my thinking better. For a group in my user space, the pledge seems reasonable. If the proposed WikiProject Women group gets going, with WMF resources and guidance, maybe a better way to do this will be devised. Lightbreather (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Personally I was concerned with the pledge, especially parts 2 and 3, but had trouble finding the words for it. Here are my thoughts now that I have had some time to gather them.
 * Line 1: I am a woman (cisgender or trans-woman, of any sexual orientation) is a big improvement from its previous form, but isn't totally inclusive of intersex persons or female-sexed persons with non-binary gender (agender, intergender, genderfluid, etc.).
 * Line 2 requires that participants out themselves as females by being in the Category:Female Wikipedians. Why is this a requirement? Is not participation in the Kaffeeklatsch outing enough?
 * I understand that the project wants to encourage women to come out of invisibility and make their presence more, well, visible, but revealing any degree of personal information, including age, sex, gender, location, name, etc, and the method of revealing it, should always remain the choice of the person themselves, and not be requirement to join any group, especially when that group is the only women-only on-wiki space available.
 * Line 3 requires that participants set their Internationisation user preference to "She edits wiki pages." Again, why? To alter some number to make female presence more visible in statistics? Again, this should be a suggestion only. I fail to understand why this is relevant to participation in the Kaffeeklatsch. As said, there probably are more women than just me who have left it at "prefer not to say" for reasons other than fear of sexism or harassment. For myself, it's because of my native tongue and culture. --Pitke (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , see my "Response" below. But I have a question for you: Are your native tongue and culture genderless? If so, cool! Lightbreather (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would sign the pledge, as I am a woman editor who greatly appreciates this effort, but I do not want to identify myself as a woman via preferences or categories. Ongepotchket (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Ongepotchket. Maybe if the WikiProject Women proposal gets off the ground, with WMF resources and guidance, a better way to do this will be devised. Lightbreather (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No and also Hell no. I'm one of the "they" sorts and that won't change. It's a safety issue.    Montanabw (talk)  00:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Montanabw, do you believe an editor who sets their user preference to "She edits," or who joins the "Female Wikipedians" category, is less safe than other editors? If so, in what way do you mean? For instance, on Wikipedia, or in real life, or what? Lightbreather (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I have just removed myself from the group. I joined with concerns about the pledge - concerns others share - but your response makes it clear you do not agree. I can not therefore remain. Lady of  Shalott  17:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As you wish, LadyofShalott, and no hard feelings on my part. While hosting this test group in my space, these requirements feel safer to me. As I said, perhaps if WikiProject Women gets off the ground a better way to do this will be agreed upon. Perhaps someone should start a test group in their space with different requirements? Lightbreather (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I am a genderqueer person, and I would like to join. I noticed that you allow trans women in (which is great!) but I am just wondering whether I could too. No hard feelings if not. :) BenLinus  1214 talk 13:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Response
Why ask those who would like to join the Kaffeeklatsch to change their user preference to "She edits wiki pages," and add their username to the category "Female Wikipedians"?

The objective is to have a women-only space on Wikipedia as a place first and foremost for women to feel safe - a refuge. I have based the idea on the Anita Borg Institute's Systers list. Although the groups would be similar in their goals - a safe place for women to talk about tech (Systers) and Wikipedia (Kaffeeklatsch) - their framework is different. The Systers group has been active for over 20 years. The Kaffeeklatsch is a test group while the WikiProject Women proposal is under consideration at the IdeaLab.

When a person registers an account on Wikipedia, they have to give a username, which does not have to be their real name, and... that's it. You don't have to give your real name. You don't have to give an email address. You don't have to state your gender. However, as we all know, gender does end up being divulged, intentionally or otherwise. The editing environment is hostile, which feels unsafe to a lot of women, and little is done about it, nor is little likely to be done about it in the near future.

When a person subscribes to the Systers list, they must be approved by a moderator. They give their email address and their name, and they have to 1) tell their involvement in tech (1-2 sentences suffice), 2) say that they are a woman, and 3) say that they have read and agree to the list's rules (a lengthy set). Then the person's request is evaluated by a moderator, and the email address is confirmed. This process goes a long way toward assuring the list members that they're safe. This process has been successful in making and keeping Systers a valued place for women in tech for a long time.

I don't think those who want to join this group should have to share their real names and email addresses. However, I do think that asking them to make a small sacrifice for the peace of mind of other group members is reasonable. If it is more important to a woman Wikipedian to keep her user preference set to something other than "She edits wiki pages," or not to join the category "Female Wikipedians," than it is to be a part of the group, there is still the Teahouse to reach out to for support. But for women who are members of the group, there is some comfort in knowing that other members of the group are "out" as women on all of Wikipedia, and not just for access to the group.

At any rate, as I said, this is only a test group for now, and it is to be hoped that the IdeaLab proposal may get off the ground, and then perhaps there will be better ways of managing membership. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand the model you're trying to emulate but I don't see it working here on Wikipedia for a couple of reasons.


 * First, the Anita Borg Systers group is completely private: non-members are unable to read the list and message are not publicly archived. A completely private area isn't possible on Wikipedia and so you cannot apply the same membership standards. You're asking people to give up their privacy and to expose themselves for not much in the way of a return. If you want to offer privacy you'll have to take this off-wiki.


 * Second, you say that women need a safe space but you are excluding some of the women who need it - ones who might not want to specify both their gender and the internationalization. You say above that they can go to the Teahouse but you say elsewhere that the Teahouse isn't well-run because men run it. The overall message is that if women aren't willing to be out and proud as women, they can't join your group. If your goal is to provide a place free from disruption, you'd be better off with some kind of moderation that allows disruptive people to be banned from the page rather than focusing on requiring that prospective members specify both gender and internationalization (which doesn't actually prevent disruption because people can lie - and some women contributors can be at least as disruptive as men contributors).


 * As an aside, you're basically proposing that a social space be set up on Wikipedia. Some will see as unnecessary because people are supposed to be here to build an encyclopaedia and discussions on wiki are supposed to be focused on ways to improve articles. If you want this proposal to succeed then you'll need to address that aspect. Ca2james (talk) 23:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As I wrote above, to participate in the Systers group one must give their name and their email address. That would be asking too much here in this public group. However, asking a woman to give something here isn't unreasonable when the something they're asked to give is a token compared to what the private Systers group asks. In other words, both Systers and this Kaffeeklatsch ask women to say, "I am a woman," but the Systers group (smartly) asks additionally for two substantive pieces of information, to give some peace of mind to the group. Since it would be too much to ask women here to share their names and email addresses, asking for these other assurances is reasonable.


 * As for taking the group off-wiki, I am in the middle of collaborating with the Systers-keeper to set up a Wikipedia Systers space, which will be a private space to complement to this Klatsch (and, it is to be hoped, a future WikiProject Women space).


 * As for the Teahouse, yes, I don't think it feels as safe for women as a women-only space would feel. (I was once told by a Teahouse host that I was being too sensitive. This is a common way to belittle women.)


 * No, I am not proposing a social space, or at least not a mainly social space. I want it to be more focused on community, policies, and guidelines than on content, but content discussion will not be off limits. The space's goals are:
 * Create a space conducive to women's participation on Wikipedia (No trashing allowed);
 * Maintain the space for women to seek advice from women peers;
 * Maintain the space for women to discuss the challenges they share as women Wikipedians;
 * Increase the number of women editors on Wikipedia.
 * However, it does not have special rights or privileges, and it cannot make rules (that apply outside the group), nor can it impose its preferences on articles, policies, or guidelines.


 * I'd like to make two final points. 1. Some have scoffed at the idea that Wikipedia can feel unsafe to women - but turned around elsewhere and suggested that it is unsafe to set your preference to "She edits" or to add your username to the Female Wikipedians category. And 2. Some have suggested that to say that one feels unsafe here makes light of the fears of women who are or have been physically unsafe in the real world. However, many women who suffer real-world abuse suffer it hand-in-hand with electronic abuse. And psychological abuse effects how safe one feels in the real world.


 * Please read the "Vote stacking" section. You are clearly cherry picking your notifications to areas where you expect support. If you cannot see your bias then I suggest you leave notifying editors about the debate to other people. Chillum 16:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So a good question for someone to ask somewhere (please, please not here): Is it unsafe to do these things? Lightbreather (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

SPI Investigation
You indicated you are not afraid of a check user. Would you volunteer that it be done then on the SPI noticeboard? If a check user comes to nothing then my sincere apologies for wasting valuable time of you and others. The coinciding of edits does seem very suspicious and seeing that you have been blocked for puppetry in the last 60 days does make reasonable persons ask reasonable questions. I honestly hope I am wrong and the check user proves me wrong but I also see many things that I felt needed addressing. It is not personal as it often gets down to personal insults of which I have sustained for making a reasonable report. It has not been from you and I appreciate that. 208.54.38.226 (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Checkusers generally decline requests such as you are suggesting. Lady  of  Shalott  18:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Never Give Up
You may not know how important your presence here has been to me, so I'm here to tell you, I would not have had the courage to keep caring about WP if it wasn't for you. No matter what happens, please, never forget that. Darknipples (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Simple question for Darknipples Section on GSL
I took it to the tea house and am receiving counsel. I'm fine with giving IP editor a chance to respond to my request on their talk page. If they do not respond I will file a grievance. Despite the fact that section makes me feel very uncomfortable, it stands as an excellent symbol of what I have to deal with from other editors on the GSL page. My point is, I'm fine with leaving it there for now, so please don't try to change it on my account. If you ever feel the need to stand up for me, just bring it up with me on my talk page first. I refuse to be anyone else's burden, if I can help it, but thank you for your vigilance and all your efforts trying to make me feel welcome and safe. Darknipples (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Enforcement request
I am filing a request for discretionary sanction at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement because of Mike Searson's editing. It concerns you directly. 162.119.231.132 (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hyperbole aside, that shovel comment was uncalled for.Two kinds of pork Makin'Bacon 01:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

While I've watched AE for years, this is the first time I ever commented in the admin section. So I can't claim too much expertise, and I don't want to dominate that section. In answer to your question about other people being sanctioned, I'm aware of one case. There may be more in the log. IIRC, that action did end up being appealed to the arbcomm. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Why I showed up at ARE
Please understand, I'm not here to pick a fight. But why I showed up at ARE is that there are Editors who monitor you and me. For better or worse, you thrust both of us into a very large "fish bowl" last year. I'm happy just to be past the Tban, but apparently there are others watching both of us very carefully. I made my comments in defense of Mike and was trying to be specific of how his comments can be misunderstood so easily when taken out of context. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not do anything to "us" last year. I'll take responsibility for my own behavior, but not yours. The way you worded your comments at ARE was as much about taking a poke at me as it was about defending Mike, otherwise you could have simply said: "Mike can be very sarcastic, but I don't think he meant anything personal with his shovel comment."


 * Now, if you don't mind, please give me some space for a while. Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. There was no poke intended, but I can understand how you'd take it that way. I won't participate in discussions with you, unless I'm called to it. But I intend to edit what I have an interest in regardless of who is already involved. Take care, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 01:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

WT:WER
Hi, I am ; not sure we've ever interacted before, but I've seen you around, and generally appreciated your insight. In regards to the present discussion at WT:WER, I saw your recent post as to whether you are able to participate; of course, the answer is yes. Has the discussion grown a tad heated in places? Yes. Do I think all parties are acting in good faith? I honestly do, including Eric. I do not think requesting sanctions for his participation was helpful, but at the same time, I will monitor the discussion in the event anyone would go off the deep end, crossing the line of WP:CIVIL or any other policies. Thank you for the help request, and let me know if I can be of further assistance. All the best,  Go  Phightins  !  23:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

AE report on EC
As a member of Retention, I'm requesting that you withdraw your report at AE. If there's a case to be made, it should be brought forward by an uninvoled editor, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As a member of Retention, I'm requesting that you withdraw your report at AE. Buster Seven   Talk  00:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I tried - twice - to get his GGTF and sexism comments taken care of quietly at WT:WER. Both requests were shut down within a few minutes. Short of being asked, once again, to ignore Eric Corbett's comments, AE seemed like my next best choice.


 * In case you're unaware, these are the kinds of things he has said in reply to me in the past: . Lightbreather (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please withdraw this report in the interest of building an encyclopedia. There is no violation, this is only going to result in your request being denied and Eric being provoked. He was provoked recently and showed remarkable restraint but patience is always finite.


 * Frankly you are poking the bear and this bear has been very productive while showing a remarkable improvement in behavior since the recent remedies. Chillum 00:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm glad all of you showed up to pile on LB, it case you think she didn't hear you all the first hundred times. May I ask why she should withdraw her request? If someone is breaking their sanctions, it's kind of on them, no? Nobody forced anybody to respond to her regarding the topic of gender, against their sactions. I respectfully request that editors (from the EDITOR RETENTION page, seriously?) kindly stop badgering women who aren't doing anything wrong, just because they are feminists who aren't doing everything the way you guys want. People who edit here are going to be female, and they are going to have ideas you don't like. These silencing bully tactics against whatever female target du jour by the same anti-feminist cliques are tiresome, predictable, and a huge part of why editor participation and retention is failing on WP. Building an encyclopedia doesn't mean we build it your way or not at all. Ongepotchket (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

List of WER Members
I've gone over the list of members and there about 80 or so editors that may be women. I really have no way of knowing. Why don't you invite those 80 to participate in the WER Consultation. Please just make your invitation as simple as possible. If you could "send" me a copy I would appreciate it. Let me know whom you have invited and I will make arrangements to invite the balance of the membership. Buster Seven   Talk  08:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am rescinding my statement that I will make arrangements. A discussion is on-going as to how to invite all WER members but I have withdrawn from that discussion. Buster Seven   Talk  20:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather, prove to me you are here to write an encyclopedia and improve Sonia Poulton so it doesn't get deleted, or improve Katie Hopkins so it is devoid of tabloid sources. Or add a few sources to Kathleen Andrews. All articles I have worked on recently. Or read Enid Blyton and see what good work Eric can do. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Another idea. Go to User:Buster7/The List - Women Artists and help write some articles about women muralists' during the Great Depression. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  20:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to improve these articles that I've created about women and topics of interest to women: Laura Langbein; Laura Fjeld; Carolyn Gallaher; Catherine J. Murphy; Stop Porn Culture; Sexism in the technology industry; List of feminist comic books; Priya's Shakti; Shakmagia; Princeless. They're mostly stubs or start class, and the last three are comic books, which is not an area I'm very familiar with.


 * You could also help improve some of the dozens of articles about women and topics of interest to women that I have worked on: Online identity; Sharon Mitchell; STDs in the porn industry; Stephanie Swift; Good girl art; Rebekka Armstrong; Moms Demand Action; Cunt; philoSOPHIA; Women in computing; Carol Danvers; Ms. Marvel; Annie Easley. (I improved many dozens of articles about women porn actors. Porn articles, IMO, are some of the poorest quality articles on Wikipedia.)


 * Of course, I work on articles about men, too, and created these articles about men: Robert J. Cottrol; Aaron S. Zelman (contemporary figures in one of my preferred topic areas). Lightbreather (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

ds/alert
NE Ent 20:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

 * Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Your idea
I wish your all women's project the best of luck if it does work out. After thinking it over I am open to seeing the results I just remain a bit skeptical though is all. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And thanks for deleting the porn image plastered on Sandstein's talk page repeatedly by vandals. Lightbreather (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome =). I still feel as well that we (as an encyclopedia) should focus on a targeted age of women's editors before looking at the bigger picture. Age difference I feel is the same for both sexes what the younger generations find good practices the older generations might disagree with. If and when your all women project comes together what things do you plan on talking about? I want to hear this in more of your words and not something that you prepared for the idea. Will the focus of the group be to bring in new editors if so, how? How do you plan on convincing Wikipedia as a whole to adopt ideas created by a group of women? (Sorry to ask so much just my thoughts though is all) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If you're going ahead with a women's project, I won't be supporting or opposing it, once it comes into existance. It's the same stance I have about GGTF. GoodDay (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

WER
I'm sorry you were treated the way you were at WT:WER and on the AE case. Whether you have been subject to sanctions or disciplinary measures in the past or not, that's no  excuse for them to behave they way they did. They ought to be ashamed of themselves for being admins and/or purporting to be members of the WER project. If they decide to leave Wikipedia, it won't have been ultimately your fault, and I for one will not be begging them to come back. But please try to stay away from drama. Don't even think of doing or saying anything that could be in the slightest  bit  construed as you taking a poke at someone. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed entirely with Kudpung's first sentiment, and sort of ambivalent on the second: there's the self-preservation argument, but...if the system is incapable of handling people actually enforcing our theoretical behavioural standards, it's broken and should be pushed over. Ultimately, though, it's your call and nobody else's. Ironholds (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your input at WER, is always welcomed. GoodDay (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Barnstars
Do not give barnstars to administrators blocking editors you are in disagreement with or who you have reported for breaching discretionary sanctions. If you do this again, you will be blocked. This sort of behaviour does nothing to improve the editing atmosphere on the project, as you well know. Nick (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you see this? Lightbreather (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI
I have just closed the arbitration enforcement request against Mike Searson. Mike is blocked for a month, topic-banned from gun control (broadly construed), and—the reason I'm informing you specifically—prohibited from diretly or indirectly interacting with, commenting on, or addressing you anywhere on Wikipedia. The latter two sanctions are in place indefinitely. You're welcome to contact me if you require clarification of anything. Note that the interaction ban is one-way, so you are not subject subject to sanctions yourself. I would, though, advise that you give him a wide berth and—within reason—avoid giving him any reason to interact with you. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Question for admin
Can an uninvolved Admin please close this thing? I think it's died down now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_comments_on_User_talk:Eric_Corbett --Lightbreather (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as being your proposal to ask that it be closed. In any case it's normal to let these gather comment for more than a day and to be closed in due course. Stephen 22:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
For taking the step of correcting the assumption that I am a woman here. Thanks and have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova  20  (email) 15:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Dropping the stick
Lightbreather, nothing personal, but I don't think anything is going to come of the discussion at my talk page, so I closed it. The conversation is in the page history, but I deleted it so as not to attract a big debate there. I've just finished a very contentious content dispute elsewhere and my energy is at a low ebb, I can really only manage one drama at a time and a different drama that I need to prioritize is heading up (with people of both sexes being bullied, FWIW). Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. I only ask that you please tone-down your comments about me. I am editing in good faith, and even if we disagree, there's no need for overly judgmental personal comments. Lightbreather (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement discussion
I am requesting action at WP:AE regarding a section at Talk:Gun show loophole which you edited. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Question for admin 2
Could someone delete the portion of this comment from the comma after "behaviour" through "nose"? I would do it per WP:RPA but I suspect someone might come after me. I really don't like these rumors about me baiting EC (note the lack of diffs with these claims) floating around to besmirch my reputation with editors who should happen to read them. Lightbreather (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌. It is up to to manage his own talk page; he has already hatted that section, so that it will only be seen by someone who actively digs for it, and he has already declined a request to revdelete another passage. My advice is to drop it - trying to refactor the record after these spats only prolongs them. JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Adjusting pilot start date - WP:Co-op
Hello  Lightbreather ,

I'll be putting out a formal update sometime soon, but I wanted to inform you that I've decided to push our start date back to mid-February rather than in January. There are number of reasons for this, but the biggest factor is that we are now facing the hard work of implementing our designs on the Mediawiki interface. It's a limiting environment to work with from a web-building perspective, and the team that worked on the Teahouse can offer similar testimonials to these challenges. We also want to make sure there is time for us and for you to test the environment out, ask questions at our project's talk page, and give us a little time to make any last changes before we start inviting editors to the space. If some of you know you will be unavailable during this time, it's totally fine if you need to bow out for the pilot. But we do need all the mentors we can get, so even if you can take the time to mentor just one or two editors, that would be fantastic. Thanks a bunch, <b style="font-family:Candara;color:green">I, JethroBT</b> drop me a line on behalf of Wikipedia:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by through   MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)