User talk:Lightbreather

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Per Defending yourself against claims (linked to in notice above), I have not abused multiple accounts or IPs and have not breached the policy on meat-puppetry. Lightbreather (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in this day and age there are so many guys who don't like GGTF-type efforts who know how to fake the appearance of coming from an IP in a specific locality, not to mention fake a similar writing pattern. I've seen cases with much clearer evidence rejected. Just more dubious stuff going on... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Block notice

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lightbreather (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Per this reason, which I found after following and reading the dozens of links one encounters when reading the guide to appealing blocks.

Decline reason:

I don't see anything there which justifies your abuse of multiple accounts; perhaps you might clarify in a future request. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

Lightbreather (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Per the edit summary from my first/last request, I am begging a response from one of the emails I sent to functionaries yesterday - the first sent more than 24 hours ago now, and before this block was handed down. Personal information is involved so the evidence, if I'm allowed to present it, and the discussion, if I'm allowed to have it, must be private. I understand Mike V's reasons for drawing his conclusion, but information, private information that I offered to other functionaries before I knew who Mike V was or what he was doing, was not factored into the decision. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

If there are privacy concerns that administrators may not be aware of, that's fine, but as such the unblock request will need to be evaluated by a functionary who can review the material in question. It should be noted that I consulted with GorillaWarfare yesterday before I posted my findings. She informed me that she was unaware of any privacy concerns through the functionary or arbitration avenues that would discourage me from posting the behavioral evidence. Mike V • Talk 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. GW may very well be unaware, since I have not been able to share my concerns explicitly and privately with her. Clerk @Rschen7754: is aware of who I have reached out to. Could you consult privately with him and see if one of those people is able to reply to the pleas that I sent? Lightbreather (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This user is asking that her block be reviewed:

Lightbreather (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

About the block added last night. I swear the actions of IP address 69.16... were not mine. We do not use the ISP Highlands Network Group and I've never heard of Mudhook Marketing. I DO NOT LIVE IN PHOENIX. Since my block, any editing I've done has been here in my own user space.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=About the block added last night. I swear the actions of IP address 69.16... were not mine. We do not use the ISP Highlands Network Group and I've never heard of Mudhook Marketing. I DO NOT LIVE IN PHOENIX. Since my block, any editing I've done has been here in my own user space. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=About the block added last night. I swear the actions of IP address 69.16... were not mine. We do not use the ISP Highlands Network Group and I've never heard of Mudhook Marketing. I DO NOT LIVE IN PHOENIX. Since my block, any editing I've done has been here in my own user space. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=About the block added last night. I swear the actions of IP address 69.16... were not mine. We do not use the ISP Highlands Network Group and I've never heard of Mudhook Marketing. I DO NOT LIVE IN PHOENIX. Since my block, any editing I've done has been here in my own user space. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Lightbreather (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Salvio replied to my question regarding the block extension he placed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Salvio_giuliano&diff=636148503&oldid=636122559 Gaijin42 (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I saw that, but I'd still like another admin to consider my appeal. Of course I'd like personal info revdeled - and I've got outstanding Requests for that - but I wouldn't just try to delete it. That would be stupid, and it (simple deletion of a couple paragraphs) wouldn't do much to address my underlying concern/request. Lightbreather (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The info you want revdeled, is it the info in the diff I posted above that was used to extend your block? I'm not sure that is rev-del worthy, as it is just referring to information that you posted on wiki, but in any case you could request revdel directly from oversight by emailing [email protected] with the specific info you think should be removed. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin and TParis: can you please at least undo the block extension while I'm waiting to here from someone privately about the first block. This was not me. I don't live in Phoenix, and I was out to dinner with my husband when that happened. @Salvio giuliano: I've done some stupid things in my life, but I wouldn't do anything that stupid. Please help. Lightbreather (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am quite sorry, but as I said on my talk page, applying Occam's razor, my conclusion is that the IP was operated by you. Of course, I accept review of my actions and, so, if another administrator wants to revert my block extension, they can do so. Concerning your request for revdeletion, I can only say that it's being discussed on the dedicated mailing list and you should receive a response soon. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Block questions

Can @Salvio giuliano: or some other functionary explain this to me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALightbreather

--Lightbreather (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit [1] from a Phoenix IP, removing information about you. Presumed to be block evasion. I have posted a message to Salvio with some thoughts. User_talk:Salvio_giuliano#Lightbreather_block_evasion Gaijin42 (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

On my mother's ashes, it wasn't me. Also, could someone please revdel the location info? Lightbreather (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, @GorillaWarfare, Newyorkbrad, and Worm That Turned: could you please block Hell in a Bucket for a bit, or ban him from the GGTF ArbCom pages? And maybe PROTECT those pages? Lightbreather (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

And is this kosher?[2][3] Especially while I'm blocked? Lightbreather (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

IP addresses that have commented on the GGTF ArbCom talk pages - plus one that has been banned for disruption

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since some editors have expressed such concern about whether or not the legitimate use (say, perhaps, for privacy) of an IP address is overridden by inappropriate uses (take your pick), especially in an ArbCom case, here are some IP addresses that have commented on the GGTF ArbCom talk pages that, for some reason, have not been "scrutinized." 122.177.11.190 (talk) Geolocates to Delhi, India. 12.249.243.118 (talk) Geolocates to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 204.101.237.139 (talk) Gelocates to Ontario. 2.125.151.139 (talk) Geolocates to Rochdale, UK (Greater Manchester) 67.255.123.1 (talk) Geolocates to Vestal, New York. 90.213.181.169 (talk) Geolocates to Rochdale, UK (Greater Manchester) 94.54.249.249 (talk) Geolocates to Istanbul. 71.11.1.204 (talk) Geolocates to Stamford, Connecticut. The following IP editor found the above information so disturbing that he/she kept deleting it from my sandbox! (He/she has been banned for disruption.[4]) 91.232.124.60 (talk) Geolocates to United Kingdom (Manchester ISP M247 Ltd). --Lightbreather (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I don't know enough about all of the involved parties and others who are participating at the GGTF ArbCom, but I know that two involved parties - @Eric Corbett and Sitush: - are from or have recently been in Manchester, and that at least two others - @J3Mrs and Richerman: - who have commented on the case have strong ties to Manchester. Therefore, I am concerned that at least three of the IPs given, the Manchester IPs - could be sock or meat puppets. Lightbreather (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I'm not one of them. That is a pretty specious connection you are making and you may wish to reconsider it. - Sitush (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Without evidence it should be ignored out of hand, the differences in blocks here and Lightbreathers is that there was more evidence other then just a location to indicate sockpuppetry. It will all be behavioral based and there really isn't a lot so unless it's completely telling it's an argument that doesn't hold water. If evidence can be given other then just a location then that's a different story. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC) That's a very serious allegation you're making. Eric Corbett 22:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC) It looks like one editor will be banned for, among other things, making unsupported allegations and wild assumptions. J3Mrs (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Wait a minute... At least nine IP users comment on the GGTF ArbCom page, but only one is picked out of the bunch to check as a sock/meat? More than one person there suggested that IP users may not participate in "discussions internal to the project." Others talked about avoiding scruitiny, and in a way that suggested that scrutiny overides the legitimate use of alternate accounts for privacy. Why aren't these other editors held up to the same standards as the one? Is there a double standard? Lightbreather (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC) You getting caught socking isn't a case of being "picked out" (picked on?) randomly. There was clear behavioural evidence that gave you away, not just location. State your behavioural evidence and I'm sure someone will transpose it to SPI. DeCausa (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) So ask a CU to check out those IP addresses, but I absolutely guarantee that none of them will correlate with the users you've named. Eric Corbett 22:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC) CU's won't publicly link the IPs with registered users like that - as was seen in the Lighbreather SPI case. It will come down to behavioural evidence, hence my request to Lightbreather to cite her behavioural evidence. In the Lightbreather SPI case, she was caught socking through behavioural evidence after the CU was declined.DeCausa (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC) That's certainly the official line, but I think we all suspect that CUs are performed in secret all the time. Eric Corbett 23:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I can unequivocally state that I have never commented on that case under anything but my own username. In fact, as far as I remember, I have never contributed to wikipedia as an anonymous IP. Richerman (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC) @Flyer22:, since you claim to have some skill at sniffing out socks, I hope you don't let this drop. It won't help me, but it will take some of the sting out of being singled out as someone whose privacy means less than at least eight others who are commenting anonymously, without scrutiny, on the GGTF ArbCom. Lightbreather (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Evidence re Manchester (possible) socks/meat Evidence for Manchester IP address 2.125.151.139 One to the GGTF ArbCom https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629250227 There is an interesting comment in this post: If I could understand the scope of this case and wasn't in hiding, I might be tempted to list others where you didn't apologise/retract but obviously should have done. This immediately after saying: You make a lot of that general type of error, Carolmooredc, causing you to make fairly frequent apologies, retractions or amendments. An example would be your assumption that Montanabw was a man. Which reminded me of this Blame game? discussion, especially the comment by J3Mrs, Don't forget when an editor disagreed with you on the GGTF page you accused her of being male....[5] And one to a user talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dougweller&diff=prev&oldid=629276476 I've seen this same sort of comment (sometimes playful, sometimes like a dissertation) over what a term means multiple times by Eric Corbett and Sitush. My gut tells me (as Hell in a Basket says) that this IP editor may be J3Mrs. Or, considering the "in hiding" remark and things Sitush said that are given in the next section - Sitush. Lightbreather (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Your gut is 100% wrong. I don't even live in Manchester or even Greater Manchester. I suggest you retract it. J3Mrs (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Do you ever visit Manchester? Lightbreather (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Yes I do visit Manchester, it's still not a crime, but you can't seriously think that I would travel there to edit anonymously? I am perfectly capable of speaking my mind logged in. I don't know whether you can categorically deny you haven't edited while logged out but I can and I think you should apologise. J3Mrs (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Evidence for Manchester IP address 90.213.181.169 Three to the GGTF ArbCom (for a total of about 2.5Kb added to case discussion) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629742872 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629743261 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_Gap_Task_Force/Evidence&diff=prev&oldid=629780209 And one to WT:Noticeboard for India-related topics https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics&diff=prev&oldid=629759866 All of these posts were on October 15, 2014. In an talk page discussion Party to Arbitration Case, Sitush said: Doubt I'll be adding evidence. I am once again briefly in Manchester but will soon be leaving and am thus spending my short bit of time here refuting errant claims etc in the Workshop phase. At this point, Sitush had already announced his "retirement," and in this post he says he doubts he'll be adding evidence. He also says that he is in Manchester. All of this - Manchester, the GGTF ArbCom, India-related topics, the timing - suggest to me Sitush. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC) Evidence for Manchester IP address 91.232.124.60 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/91.232.124.60 When I became aware that this editor was going to just keep removing information that I had in my sandbox to study, I asked him/her to email me so we could discuss.[6] He/she replied, "I'll not be emailing you. Do not provoke EC and Sitush with this. It is EXTREMELY unwise."[7] This person deleted this information over 36 times, and was finally blocked by Samwalton9 (talk · contribs). --Lightbreather (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC) In what sense is that "evidence"? Evidence of what? Eric Corbett 23:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC) If nothing else, it's at least evidence that someone in Manchester really doesn't want to have IP editing in Manchester related to the GGTF ArbCom case scrutinized. Lightbreather (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Lightbreather, this kind of tit-for-tat will get you nowhere. I have queried the necessity of your block on the SPI page. I hope you get unblocked, and make careful and thoughtful comments at WP:ARBGGTF/PD (talk) if you wish. If not, then a week goes by surprisingly fast, especially if you forget about WP. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC). Request Lightbreather, I think the section above is causing more of the same drama that we saw at GGTF and ought to be closed down. 90.213.181.169 and 2.125.151.139 are Sitush editing logged out (not socking, just not logged in – e.g. [8]). Re: the IP that was reverting your subpage (91.232.124.60), consider requesting a CU by email. Ditto with any of the other IPs if they were causing a problem. Posting a running analysis here is just going to cause more trouble. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Thanks, SlimVirgin. I am just out the door to dinner with my husband. If I can't get back on tonight, I will be back tomorrow. I will think about what you and others have written here. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC) (some sort of edit conflict, not sure what is going on) Well, if that is me editing while logged out then I apologise, even though it makes no difference really. I'll dig around what was happening at that time. I can absolutely guarantee that it was not deliberate and I suspect a similar thing has happened inadvertently even on the arb's voting page. I'll let you know the cause if indeed there was a cause. Chances are, it relates to using my mobile phone while away from home. FWIW, I think my ISP should locate to Sheffield but it has changed recently (and bears no real similarity to my actual location, which is in Wales), so who knows? - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Yes, the diff you give above is me. I even said so. - Sitush (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC) No idea who this is but there are obvious reasons why someone from Delhi might be contributing I suspect that this one might be accidental (WP:BEANS) but, really, does it matter? No idea at all but not me Ditto This is me. I can send a CU some stamped photos that would demonstrate why this might occur. I apologise for the misunderstanding. I've recently switched mobile phones and was at a relative's house at the time (a house that is approx 200 miles from Rochdale, but that's how geolocate works sometimes) No idea Also no idea Ditto Hope this helps. Please note that the ones that were me are now irrelevant due to a change of ISP that has been forced upon me by a situation that is far, far more severe personally than the stuff relating to GGTF. I am happy to release that info to arbcom directly and I'm happy to absolve WMF to speak with arbs about it. Far too many people have absolutely no idea what has been going on and, alas, there is a limit to what can be said publicly. You either accept that or you do not but, either way, it really makes no difference in the context of the diffs given. I have no opinion regarding your own SPI situation: I had a gut feeling but did not pursue it because, as I said at the SPI case page, I didn't think anything would come of it anyway. - Sitush (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempted outing

Without confirming or denying the accuracy of the information, I would like to charge @Hell in a Bucket: with attempted WP:OUTING of my home or work location in relation to his speculating about my use of an alternate account. As I am still waiting to hear from someone privately regarding my block, how do I go about starting this process?

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the process would be to write a post here and use the {{helpme}} or {{adminhelp}} templates to ask for it to be copied to ANI. This may get declined, as since you are currently blocked, and this is an appeal of your block or anything, some may think it is out of process.

Also, without any comment about the merit of your particular issue, I think people may be weary of the drama related to the case, and also wary of the newly placed Discretionary Sanctions in the area. I fear you may get thought of in a tit-for-tat scenario, especially when it may appear you are doing it in response to your own block, and pinged numerous arbs and admins and not gotten anywhere. But in any case, that is what you would do to try.Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't seem to get anyone to understand how scared I am, and your reply doesn't help. Sorry. I'm not saying you're trying to scare me, but I don't feel encouraged. I have sent an emergency email to Wikimedia, as TP suggested earlier. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin and TParis: if nothing is going to happen with this, is there a way to just close out my account and delete everything associated with it? Lightbreather (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You may not currently qualify for WP:VANISH since you have a block active. Perhaps after your block expires though. You could also ask for your user page, but all of your various contribs in the rest of wiki would remain. (If you are allowed to vanish, they would get renamed, but your signature lines in various talk pages would remain) Per vanish, you can ask for your user talk to be deleted, but such is the exception and not the rule. Also per vanish, due to licensing issues, it is not possible to actually delete an account. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As you have attempted to tie my user name to a location all this seems somewhat, I can't decide what word to use here but you get the gist. J3Mrs (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@J3Mrs: I panicked, and I apologize. Not for bringing up the eight IP addresses that no-one put before SPI, but for bringing up names. However, I still think someone should investigate those IPs. In addition to my original focus (hatted/habbed above), I think these two look very suspicious:

• 67.255.123.1 (talk) Geolocates to Vestal, New York.
• 71.11.1.204 (talk) Geolocates to Stamford, Connecticut.

But to repeat, I apologize. If you've never been through an SPI - I hope you never are! Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging your error, attempted outing isn't acceptable whatever the circumstances. J3Mrs (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm the Stamford IP and I spend time reading Arbcom pages and the Drama pages to fill some blank time at work. I'm not related to anyone else. I've done some IP editing here and there as well. Sorry if you think that I'm related to a sockpuppet conspiracy. 71.11.1.204 (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Question for administrator

Actually, I have two related questions. The first is the more straightforward of the two.

• I asked to have my block extension reviewed because that IP action on the GGTF ArbCom page was not me. Plain and simple. The request is above, dated 15:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC), along with a comment from the admin who extended the block, who says he accepts review of his actions. (Per Blocking policy#Other important information).

• The day before that, two days ago now, I begged to have the original block reviewed privately because there are things I cannot share without potentially outing myself.[9] Can this, as Mike V suggested, be evaluated by a functionary who can review the material in question (privately)?

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Key evidence that Sue Rangell has a puppet account

I have presented elsewhere evidence of why I believe @EChastain: 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[10] the latter in a manner that was an extension of the edit Sue Rangell made[11] to that article.

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

AE Warning

In July, Sue Rangell received a warning[12], 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 Sandstein (talk · contribs)
• I would warn Sue Rangell as Sandstein suggests Lord Roem (talk · contribs)
• I find some of Sue Rangell's comments disturbing EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

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[13] 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

[[14]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I had already asked for oversight before this was posted. Lightbreather (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)