Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs) at 12:42, 1 March 2015 (→Co-op: Mentor profiles and final pilot prep: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Kaffeeklatsch discussions

Kaffeeklatsch request to close

Nice idea, but not at Misplaced Pages. 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. — kikichugirl  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) 03:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, 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)

Pitke, 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. LadyofShalott 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

It's already covered

It's already covered in the 2nd paragraph; by returning the new addition, it's now covered twice in the lede. Why revert? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I have several real-life and wiki projects going at once. As for this, you're right - and I fixed it. Lightbreather (talk) 01:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I also expanded the content again here; it's an important counterpoint to claims that the term was only used by activists or the media before the industry ditched it. Feel free to tweak if need be. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

AGF

I've noticed that you preface some of your edit summaries with "AGF". I know that's a reference to WP:AGF, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying that you are assuming good faith? Or are you asking the other editor to assume good faith? Or do you mean something else? — Mudwater 01:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If it's the usage I think you're referring to (like "AGF, but...") I usually mean, "I'm assuming good faith here, but here is why this edit can't stay," or something along those lines. Lightbreather (talk) 01:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

In that case I suggest that you "assume assuming good faith". That is, since good faith is assumed, it's not necessary to say that you are assuming good faith. In fact, saying that you are assuming good faith might be misconstrued as an innuendo that you are questioning the good faith of the other editor's edits. Know what I mean? — Mudwater 01:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I have never used "AGF" in an edit summary to mean anything other than "AGF." Lightbreather (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Good. And I hope you will take my suggestion in the spirit in which it's intended. Since good faith is assumed, it can be more collegial not to point out that you are assuming good faith. It will be obvious enough when another editor's actions force you to stop assuming good faith. Anyway, it's not a huge deal either way. Thanks for your replies here. — Mudwater 01:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Clinton speech to Tech

This one I did not dawdle on... http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Hillary-Clinton-Watermark-Speak-at-Silicon-Valley-Womens-Conference-293839411.html ... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 09:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Co-op: Presentation at Wikimania 2015

Hey Lightbreather. I've put in a submission for a presentation at Wikimania 2015 called Is Two the Magic Number?: The Co-op and New Editor Engagement through Mentorship. I'll be talking about the state of finding help spaces on en.wiki and how our new mentorship space, The Co-op, factors into that picture. Reviewing will begin soon and I'll need your help to be able to present our work. Please review our proposal and give us feedback. If you would be interested in seeing this presentation, whether you are attending or not, please add your name to the signup at the bottom of the proposal (you do not need to attend Wikimania to express interest in presentations). I, JethroBT on behalf of Misplaced Pages:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Sexually Provocative Images on user Talk Page Violating WP:Userpages

There is an ANI discussion which may interest you. It concerns some old user pages that contain BDSM and spreading images that violate userpage guidelines. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw the MFD you mentioned and tagged the F Machine article for speedy delete as well. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who you are or why you came here to tell me about this, but thank you. This kind of crap is a black-eye to the project, IMO, and I know women who would never want to edit here knowing that we host that kind of "content." It's ridiculous. I guess some people don't want to have to pay for their porn!

As for the canvassing charges, I think some find that old chestnut a very handy tool to try to discredit or intimidate others. In cases like this though, it's ridiculous. Again, that kind of crap just doesn't belong here. No encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. Lightbreather (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Many send emails out when they want help from buddies but then scream canvass. As soon as I put that up it was taken down by the admin writing this article Draft:Enter_the_Dominatrix. It may have been on his watchlist. It got a GA template on it. It is blatant advertising and who the hell buys something like that anyway. I am an just an IP. I will not tell anyone to let their kids use wiki. It is a very disturbing culture in many ways. 172.56.8.170 (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

AW article

Wow, great work! It's really coming along nicely!! I'm making little tweaks, but its all based on your efforts. :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, there was just an edit conflict, I hope I did not undo anything. Sorry if I did... --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. How would you like to tackle this sentence in the "Political and legislative issues" section. I don't think it's a NPOV interpretation of what the NSSF said. I've gone back to it several times now, but the right way to re-write it hasn't come to me.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation considers it a politically driven catchphrase aimed to conflate non-automatic weapons with full-automatic assault rifles.

1. ""Background Information on So-Called 'Assault Weapons'". National Shooting Sports Foundation. December 2011. Retrieved December 18, 2012.

--Lightbreather (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting question, after reading the source I would say just call it as it is. So maybe...

"The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group organized "to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports", states that the term assault weapon has been misapplied to many semi-automatic firearms because of their appearance and not their use in crime."

What do you think? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Way better than what's there now... but punctuation goes inside quotation marks. ;-) Lightbreather (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

D'oh! I always mess that up... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions

Mike V, I'm starting this discussion on my page in the hopes that I can more easily chase off the little posse that likes to follow me. The events of yesterday that lead to the latest SPI against me: Can you explain why someone (172.56.9.123) in that range would start an SPI against me on January 16, and then someone (else? 172.56.8.170) in that range would come to my page yesterday to share their concern about smutty user pages? If I understand it correctly, these are the addresses involved:

• 172.56.6.142 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.56.8.117 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.56.8.170 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.56.9.123 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.56.15.36 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.56.15.217 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.56.16.85 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Are they all likely the same person, or are two or more people involved? Is the "hotspot" a cafe wifi connection? Or is it from a device that an individual might use and perhaps share? I don't want to spend too much time worrying about it, but if you've got any insight into what might be going on, I'd appreciate it. Aside from having four brought against me now (the first, editing while logged out, was the only one that was me), I think I've started two SPIs and commented on three or four.

I am pinging Stemoc and DD2K as they seem to think they have some ideas about who this editor or these editors might be. Oh, and Iselilja and SlimVirgin, who seem to see some behavioral clues. Lightbreather (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand why this may make you uncomfortable. I have a clear suspicion of who might be behind the IP/s (or some of them), based on behaviour not related to you. Why they would turn their focus to you, I have no idea. I don't think I can say more without starting an SPI against the one I suspect to be the IP-master. Iselilja (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Semi" articles

The main one Semi-automatic firearm is already on the Cleanup list for the Firearms project. Please give me some time to draw attention to it and get it improved. Obviously it needs a fair amount of work as I'm sure that the related articles (pistol, rifle, shotgun) need as well. It's a good thing that you started work on these, thanks. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Karanacs (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's the diff acknowledging that you did attempt to canvass. Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I contacted GorillaWarfare, and I probably should have contacted Roger Davies, too. They were both involved in my original request for an Iban in December, and the ARCA that I started on February 1.

Did I canvass Newyorkbrad? No.

Tparis? No.

Opabinia regalis? No.

Darknipples? No.

IJBall?

BoboMeowCat?

Liz?

Knowledgekid87?

MrX?

Rationalobserver?

Isaidnoway?

AnonNep?

Calidum?

Meanwhile, we'll never know how many editors Hell in a Bucket canvassed or canvasses on a regular basis, but there are a handful who show up regularly when he needs support. Lightbreather (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to get dragged into more talk page drama, but out of respect for LB I must say that I was not canvassed by her regarding this recent issue or any other issue. I.e., she's never canvassed me even though she knows that I agree with many of her points. LB, I hope that helps, but it's only a 24 hour block, so even if it doesn't don't let this get to you. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not gonna let it ruin an otherwise beautiful day. I'm just documenting events around this. Lightbreather (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear! Rationalobserver (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I was not canvassed. I have WP:ANI on my watchlist. I don’t really have an opinion on the canvass block beyond wishing that if the evidence shows canvassing on LB’s part that she be blocked by an uninvolved administrator. Karanacs has participated at WT:GGTF in a manner that appears to make her wp:involved, including directly expressing disagreement with Lightbreather’s proposals to increase female participation on Misplaced Pages.. Karanacs has also participated at wt:ggtf to say women are put off by the task force due its "militant feminists" , which ironically inspired a new active female participant on the project objecting to characterizing ggtf in terms of "militant feminism" and saying she’s been put off by the battleground brought in by a subset of male editors.,, Regardless of the accuracy of either of those positions, Karanacs seems involved and probably should have let someone else deal with any canvass concerns regarding LB. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to take me to ANI if you believe this is a bad block. It is not uncommon for an admin to take an action on someone they have interacted with before (there are only so many admins) provided they are not involved in the matter at hand. My edits in GTTF do not, per se, make me involved with lightbreather, as lightbreather is not GTTF. While I have opined, loudly, against a women-only editing space, my admin actions had absolutely nothing to do with that space. I am certainly not involved in her dispute with HIAB, although I have offered my opinion, as an uninvolved administrator at ARCA. I have, however, previously warned her about canvassing. It matters not that she didn't canvass X number of people; it matters that she canvassed at least one, after being specifically told not to violate that guideline anymore. Trying to obscure that canvassing by doing it over email makes it even more egregious. Karanacs (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Karanacs: I don't plan on filing an AN complaint regarding block. Honestly, I'd prefer to avoid the drama I suspect that would incite. However, I do think your stated opinions on LB and "militant feminists" appears to make you involved here. I also think the opening sentence of wp:involved seems to apply here: In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, any admin who has ever expressed an opinion on Eric Corbett would need to recuse from blocking him (in which case he'd never be blocked again, because everyone has issued their opinion by now). That statement on WP:INVOLVED is generally understood to apply specifically to the circumstances around the block. If I were editing an article and an edit war erupted, I would be too involved to make a block in that case. If someone made a personal attack against me, I would be too involved to make the block. Or, in this particular case, if I had opened the ANI, and LB had canvassed a few editors she thought would be sympathetic to her "side", then I would be too involved to make the block. My apologies, LB, for referring to you in the third person on your own talk page. BoboMeowCat, I'll be happy to continue this conversation on my talk page if you think it necessary. Karanacs (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket at ANI

Hell in a Bucket's latest comments at ANI:

• My last block was what 5 or so years ago? Not counting my self requested break.
• User:Ched was retracted before this ani was even started. If u look at the thread you will notice her complaints I was not in the correct forum were rebutted I was in fact at a SPI started by Cirt and the stupid shit I refer to is canvassing forum shopping and socking/suspected meat puppetry. Look at the SPI and the resulting thread. Don't let yourself be manipulated. I'm not available for more substantial replies formanfew hours but happy to respond then.
• the underhanded actions are hurting the ncylopedia that's why it is hard to ignore. She is destructive in her method.
• Commenting on a public thread or an SPI is hardly problematic. In have abstained from her user page other then a missing SPI notification and then commented on a thread which she started when crying wolf again. I was the subject of that thread..read it interesting stuff when the real pic shows.
• Please explain which one's you've complained about and why you find those problematic.
• User:GorillaWarfare were you canvassed by email? Its a central question at to votestacking which Lightbreather has been doing and I'm interested if she did it again with you?
• I reverted the one comment I made that could be considered even a little inflammatory. Why because people have been asking me to tone down the rhetoric. My comments at the SPI suggested a different person entirely for a candidate for meat puppetry and reasons why if it was Lightbreather it was being used. User:BoboMeowCat says I followed Lightbreather to the GGTF yesterday but this was related to the ANI thread and hence why I posted there. I believe Lightbreather is tying a noose for herself (if she continues behaving problematic yes I hope she ties it good and tight but if she changes the behaviors all of a sudden there isn't anything to complain about) and out of the few that listen to her there won't be many left if she continues. This whole interaction ban didn't come up until she taunted me about not using an IP in an arb case which we know all know was a lie. I called her on it and even presented evidence provided by her and this was suddenly outing and harrassment and I was the problem. It's not harrassment to reply to a post about me when the edits weren't even close to problematic, it's not harrassment to comment on forum shopping and canvassing and personal attacks. Those are problems that she is creating through problematic behaviors, she's like a person that is trying to put a fire out with gasoline and torches, this here again shows I have and continue to try to show her that it's her behavior not her that's the problem. Why isn't any of that mentioned? Because it doesn't fit the victim narrative she wants to portray.
• User:Liz you mention that people are hounding her, when she is posting things across wiki on multiple pages in attempt to drum up support, or operate off wiki attack sites a person doesn't have to look that far.
• User:Newyorkbrad were canvassed via email as well?
• OMG Bugs twice in a week good ideas ;) A topic ban on subjects relating to gender and civility would be ideal honestly and if that happened it solves all of my concerns with Lightbreather. I can support that.
• The inappropriate behaviors have been happening there in those subject areas unless you think me talking to lightbreather has created all those issues. What do you suggest that stops the problematic behaviors? Specifically removing me from the picture wouldn't have stopped her from socking, removing me from the picture doesn't stop her from forum shopping, it doesn't stop the camvassing and it doesn't stop the use of those to bludgeon her opponents into silence. How much more would a GGTF work with people that actually want to work with others to solve the problem, if you notice only 3 names really come to mind for problematic editors, CMDC, Neotarf and Lightbreather. There is a lot more moderate women there that could further the cause. Think about this last point...she was topic banned from gun control, her re-entry seems to be a lot more genial in that area, imagine if the same result could be obtained for xivility and feminism....
• No I have not any involvement with gamergate, not one edit other then I vouched for a few editors that I previously had disagreements with that I didn't htink should be banned.
• User:Liz Well you could twist what I stated I suppose but here's the spi where it was determined that she was socking . The complaints and req for the IBAN happened only after she tried to get me blocked for outing her by making the SPI and in this SPI I actually suspected and said as much that I thought it was Neotarf but could understand why people thought it was Lightbreather and I answered a query that MIKE V stated he didn't think was plausable. Context is pretty important (look at time of comments between mine and MIke's) and it seems you may not have understood it the way I meant(hopefully that's all it is).
• User:Liz see question to me, and then my reply. Pretty reasonable as a result of a direct question....
• Fairly accurate at least according to my interests. I write about what intrigues me and I do a lot of new page patrol and I am involved in SPI. I do not go to subjects I have zero knowledge of, IE gun control and I don't really care about porn articles. I do not like censorship, I think it's mis-used and is rarely done in a fair way. The problem is that you (LB) call things harrassment that isn't harrassment. Opening a SPI and providing evidence is not harrassment, staying away from you is not harrassment, commenting at a SPI started by others is not harrassment when the comments are about that issue and not about the contributor (as much as possible given that the SPI was about you hard to avoid that), answering a question with a speculation of motives or reason you were involved with meatpupptery/socking is not harrassment. I don't even think your dragging everybody and their brother to boards to accomplish your ends is not harrassment. I think ultimately it stains your reputation and if you want to continue trampling it that's up to you. Am I or will I ever attempt to be an admin? No, I don't have the will to bend over politically that you have to to get the mop and bit and it would be a train wreck idf I did. The sad fact you complain about evidence but in SPI and especially in the behavioural phase it isn't always going to be explicit and I think that's what you want. I was right the first time you were sovking and I'm probably right there is coordination going on this time too. It's not that hard to see, IP 172 starts not one but 2 investigations on Lightbreather and Darknipples. Then all of a sudden it's using lightbreather to further this cause on nudity and porn. Lightbreather then states that the IP deserves an award. Now if you look above Lightbreather has a detailed list of everyone she considers hounding her, it includes admin, arbs and some regular editors. Does anyone think that she all of a sudden forgot that this IP started these SPI's? Does that fit the behavior we've seen here? Not so much. So then you have to ask yourself if it isn't Lightbreather who else agreed with her on those issues. CMDC and Neotarf so I responded and stated I can understand why she someone thinks she is socking but a more likely person is Neotarf. I didn't have a lot to go on just a gut feeling and a single diff which was similar and I noted it was flimsy. After this the circus of victimhood is started again and we get the passionate scream of help, I need protection from HIAB. There is a clear difference in behaviors, I try to change mine (less rhetoric) and Lightbreather sees no problem at all with anything she has done ever. I've yet to see one statement of accountability about her methods other then excuse her own misbehaviors. I've diff'd most of this beyond count before so unless anyone has specific questions about incidents I will not be providing them here again as I view it as a tactic to wear down people rather then address the behaviors and I won't repeat myself ad nasuem....

That last one alone was over 500 words. Of the 1,461 words total, there was ONE link to the SPI he started against me three months ago and FOUR diffs.

• One, his self-revert of his comment to me to "Stop. Doing. Stupid. Shit."
• One, an inscrutable comment he directed at me

Honestly if it is a joe job why on god's green earth would you take the bait? In the banning policy arb case I told Tarc that he was being used like a dog that was being set on a path...seriously if you have no involvement with it don't let another person (me included) control the path you take because if it is you are sacrificing a lot of control. Modify the message so that others can't distort it or use it for their own purposes.

• One, a comment by Mike V

I've blocked 172.56.0.0/18 for a week, as there's been much disruption from this IP range and not only from whomever is operating it as shown here. I doubt that it's Lightbreather, as there would need to be an explanation as to why she would open up a sockpuppet investigation on herself. 1 @Hell in a Bucket: If you think it is Neotarf, I'd like you to support that statement with some evidence, please.

• One, his reply to Mike V.

User:Mike V it just reminded me of this , it's flimsy but it does fit. Also point of fact Cirt opened this SPI. ON a related side note I understand what you are asking with why it could indeed be Lightbreather and I'm not entirely convinced the ip is, I think it is some sort of coordination with respect to it and it could be to enhance the victim complex we've seen and or good hand bad hand editing. (The diff is to something Neotarf posted on HIAB's talk page.

This is the quality of HIAB's best evidence against me. NOT ONE OF THOSE DIFFS IS TO AN EDIT BY ME, and it's typical of the kind of "evidence" he's presented in the past: just him supposing and wondering about what I'm doing. Lightbreather (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, in case anyone is interested (I was) my contribution at this ANI was 897 words (less than two-thirds of his) and 17 diffs - 14 diffs of his edits (not mine or someone else's). Lightbreather (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what conduct led to this block but I thought you were asking for an IBan with HIAB. If you want nothing to do with this editor, why this long analysis of his behavior? Can you just move on to other, productive activities? There are so many areas on Misplaced Pages that could use your efforts. Liz 22:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The conduct that led to the block (24 hours) was my contacting GorillaWarfare (who was involved in my original request for an IBAN and the ARCA, too). I DO want an IBAN. And since he's apparently made his "final statement," and I've made mine, I hope this is the end of it. Lightbreather (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Final statement on this issue by LB

Hell in a Bucket posted a final statement, and at least it has some diffs to my edits.

1. Complaint Saying I attempted out her using publicly provided info by herself however when the tables are turned and she decides it's ok for her to out the next percieved next perceived opponent prompting this warning
2. Warning about Personal attacks and her response here . So again it's not ok if someone else does it but if Lightbreather does it there is not harm. I'd also like to point out this is not in accordance with her manifesto User:Lightbreather/Kaffeeklatsch/Pledge about civility or maintain off wiki attack sites. Ask yourself is this person's hands really that clean?
3. Complaints about subheadings like which was actually aimed at the arb that put his foot in his mouth and lo and behold what was this thread titled with?
4. History of vote stacking as evidenced almost 30 times in January when trying to get approval for her pledge and then again when it was at MFD.

• Re 1. Yes, he outed info about me, even though he knew he might be outing. (I've attempted to only use publicly acknowledged details if any of this is WP:OUTING please remove but I hope I covered all my bases. If he had a doubt, he should have made his request via email!) When I possibly outed info about another editor? I personally asked Oversight to redact it four minutes later.
• Re 2. An editor whom I'd asked multiple times to leave me alone came to my talk page to give me uninvited "advice" about something he wasn't involved in. I asked him again to leave me alone, after which another editor defended my request. I thanked this editor and called the meddlesome editor a gossip. An admin asked me to strike this "personal attack," which I declined to do - with plenty of evidence. This had nothing to do with the Kaffeeklatsch pledge, which says, "I pledge that on this forum I will abide by the WP:CIVILITY policy at the strictest level." However, abiding by the civility policy at the strictest level elsewhere on Misplaced Pages is an invitation to have the crap kicked out of you on a regular basis.
• Re 3. WP:TALKNEW says not to put other editors' usernames in talk page headings, which is what HIAB has done multiple times. My putting his name in the ANI for an IBAN that I started? TALKNEW also says, "Some exceptions are made at administrative noticeboards, where reporting problems by name is normal."
• Re 4. It's a lie - and again with no diffs. I asked a number of women to join the Kaffeeklatsch in January. That's not vote stacking. I also notified GGTF and some "women" wikiprojects about discussions re a proposal I have at the WMF IdeaLab and related discussions. Those are, per WP:CANVASS, appropriate notifications. Lightbreather (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

What the...?

I wondered why you were not too active, then I come here to see that you've been blocked. Sorry that you've been hindered by this, see you on the other side. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Re who keeps dragging "feminism" into discussions

Montanabw, first, sorry you had to have surgery, and I hope it went well and you're back in the saddle again soon.

Second, about your comment here - - there are a few things you ought to know. When EC made the comment, "Isn't it about time that these militant feminists were dealt with once and for all?" (18:46, 26 February 2015) I don't believe gender had even been brought into the discussion. (Which was my request for an IBAN with another editor - not EC. Please scroll down.) I certainly hadn't expressed any "feminist concepts," nor used words like "female" or "woman."

However, prior to this, RO had started a discussion on EC's page that turned rather nasty. Here is the revision of that page from two minutes before EC made his "militant feminist" comment at ANI: . At that point, RO hadn't been involved in the discussion for over 18 hours. Now, I'm not going to defend RO's behavior in that discussion, but she hadn't expressed any "feminist concepts" either, or used "female" or "women." The first person to bring gender into it, as far as I can tell, was EC when he said, "That kind of behaviour clearly wasn't a one-off, but I suppose she gets away with because she claims to be a female."

The point I'm trying to make is, I think quite often "gender" and "feminism" are getting dragged into these conversations by men (perhaps even more often than women bring up these things in discussions that aren't explicitly about gender). Why?

Well, I agree that I would qualify in some circles as a "militant feminist" so I find the phrase really annoying and a label that I do wish would just not be used, so I think we are on the same page there. However, I think RationalObserver was only there to bait Corbett and I really wish people would just leave him alone; he's not as bad of a person as everyone makes him out to be, I know he insulted you, and I think he even lashed out at me once, years back, but the reality is that he's not a troll and he's not the enemy. (If you want to see the real problem, watchlist the cesspool that is the talkpage of the Gamergate-related articles. There be the dangerous trolls...) Montanabw 05:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Part 2

Bishonen, I've been following what's happening to Coffee at ANI, but I haven't seen any of this enter this discussion. Lightbreather (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As for another dust-up that happened, I'm going to tell you something and you can decide if you want to do anything with it. Admin Coffee warned an editor G. yesterday, after he called RO a shit stirrer. Within an hour of the warning, C. blocked G. Here are some of the things G. said in that time span:

• Pot stirring? well Rationalobserver you and the militant and trouble making wimmin of this project are the ones to recognize that. I applaud you. Why not block me too Coffee?
• Ah coffee, you may be able to help: I remember once when I was a boy at school, clandestinely watching a totally shocking film where nuns masturbated while a handsome priest was burn at the stake. I doubt Eric is very handsome, but tonight I am minded of that film.
• ...it's nothing to do with women editors as a whole - the whole world knows that - they are as rational as the rest of mankind; it's to do with a small group of women who have formed a group, sucked in a few gullables ... and are now playing the sexist card for their own peculiar ends.

After this, some editors tried to get Coffee in trouble for what they saw as implying Giano is racist. (Apparently, nobody saw any problem in what Giano had written up to that point.) When Coffee blocked an IP - who called somebody a nigger - posting on Giano's page, some of G's defenders thought that his edit summary implied that the IP was G.

(Actually, just before this, G. commented on C's "unusual name.") Lightbreather (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering that "coffee" is sometimes used as a descriptor for skin color for dark-skinned people (along with cocoa, chocolate, and cafe con leche), perhaps Coffee is a person of color? And is it outside the realm of possibility that a person who would label women editors whom they think are "militant" as "shit stirrers," impossible to imagine that a person who compares women editors to "nuns masturbated while a handsome priest was burn at the stake" might be capable of racist remarks?

Now I'm going to relax with my husband and watch some tech TV. Lightbreather (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant to add, Coffee is now being "discussed" at ANI. Lightbreather (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Coffee is certainly not "a person of color" and I've no idea where you've got that idea. Unless you think he's lying as regards the photos of himself he's uploaded (here, for instance), I'm not sure anyone could be any whiter. – iridescent 17:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I explained where I got that idea three paragraphs up. I'd never seen Coffee's picture. I'd never heard of him before yesterday and apparently neither had G, because he said to C:

coffee? What a curious name, I've never before heard of you...

The IP posted on Coffee's talk page, after C. blocked him:

Last one was 2 weeks, so the nigger is learning,

... so it seems like the IP might have thought C. is black. As I said, some refer to African skin tones as "coffee" and so on. (I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just that it is. Read Langston Hughes' Harlem Sweeties. Some call it the Starbucks Skin Scale. Heck, there's even a DJ named Black Coffee. Is this really new to people?)

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Lightbreather, and I say this sincerely, chill out. You are going down a rabbit hole against the wrong people and grasping at shadows. Montanabw 05:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Co-op: Mentor profiles and final pilot prep

Hey mentors, two announcements:

1. You can now make your profile at The Co-op! Please set up your mentor profile here as soon as you are able, as the pilot begins on March 4th. It isn't very involved and should only take a minute. If you need more info about what the different skills mean (e.g. writing, communication), please refer to these descriptions.
2. Profile creation, invitations, and automated matching of editors, profile creation, that will be coordinated through HostBot and a few gadgets may not be ready for our pilot, and will have to be done manually until they are ready. In preparation for the pilot, please read over these instructions on how we will be manually performing these tasks until the automated components are ready. I, JethroBT on behalf of Misplaced Pages:Co-op.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)