Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:22, 30 November 2014 editMike V (talk \| contribs)28,285 edits adding rationale, closing← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:33, 30 November 2014 edit undoMike V (talk \| contribs)28,285 editsm correctionNext edit →
Line 59:		Line 59:
	*		*

	~~Similar~~ ~~pieces~~ of evidence ~~were~~ highlighted:		A similar piece of evidence was highlighted:
	;Lightbreather		;Lightbreather
	*		*

Revision as of 08:33, 30 November 2014

Lightbreather

Lightbreather (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

For archived investigations, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbreather/Archive.

29 November 2014

– This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser.

Suspected sockpuppets

72.223.98.118 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · spi block · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
Editor interaction utility

Per this comment ] and a request to User:Lightbreather who has been requested for consent to checkuser and connect to an account. I made the conclusion that the IP was Lightbreather . The areas edited under as the IP is areas where Lightbreather was active at before her absence ie editor retention and also as a voice of support for both User:Neotarf and User:Carolmooredc. After this the IP started editing the GGTF arb case and in particular seemed to get upset anytime Eric Corbett was which mirrored other comments by Lightbreather. The dates of activity also matched up. Reason for the request is to verify inappropriate usage of an account to evade WP:SCRUTINY as a usage of WP:ILLEGIT. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The IP is editing from Phoenix, a look at LB userpage shows she lives in the same timezone plus ] states that's where the user is from the reason why that's partly important is claims like ] which Lightbreather id'd as hers found ] and ]. 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. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users

Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.

After discussions with this IP about WP:SCRUTINY, it stop posting, and LightBreather appeared at the same venue; perhaps that's just a coincidence. There is no need to dig further. The problem was resolved by explaining to the IP user that what they thought was an allowed use of an alternate account was actually a prohibited use. It would be vindictive to run checkuser and issue a sanction after any negative behavior had already ceased. I recommend closing this case, until and unless the IP resumes posting. Jehochman 03:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Jehochman, I'm not suggesting a block here. I think if it was that person and they were ok with the checkuser(the Ip {certainly was) those comments should be attributed to them. The reason for doing that is because the weight of those comments will be taken differently whether it is a positive or a negative impact. In this case I think scrutiny evasion was the purpose because if the community just sa3w Lightbreather then they might have dismissed it as part of that same group similar to what happened with the Speed of Light case a few years back and people who disagreed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
This is the ocmment I recieved from an ARB ] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea why GorillaWarfare would say that because a CU is very unlikely publicly to link a user account to an IP. Even if the connection were made, I can't see it being admitted here (although I suppose the arb mailing list might get a note). - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It is and if you give me 15 minutes why I'm gathering the diffs. So to sum up exactly what I'm saying which is either very accurate or a mammoth assumption of bad faith, Lightbreather started out as an involved party and presented a large amount of evidence and went into a silence as of 10/14, Enter IP 72 less then two weeks later carrying the standard, editing the same page areas as LB does (the gender gap, civility, editor retention etc) and magically disappearing when I made this comment ] ] only to reappear as LB to pick up where the ip left off in the crusade against EC. The excuse that the IP was being used for privacy is plausable but a suggestion makes more sense is that it was done because of the reputation earned by LB and they didn't want that reputation to stand in the way of the ultimate goal one of which has been banning Eric Corbett. The other point raised by User:Jehochman is that they in good faith stopped using the IP when asked about it, that is untrue. ] shows the IP refering to Lightbreather in the third person and deceptively trying to feign ignorance of gender which is odd because they have such a detailed knowledge of everyone else involved, Neotarf, Sitush, Carolmooredc, Two Kinds of Pork and not to mention Eric Corbett and all of his supporters but somehow doesn't know LB gender? I would allege they stopped using the IP because the game was up, more people, Capeo, myself, Jehochman and Salvio, possibly more i missed, started pushing back at the socking and the evidence was becoming clear. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I was suggesting you take this to SPI. Implying that comment was endorsing a CU is misleading. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the guidelines here ] when sockpuppetry is suspected during an open arbcom case to request the checkuser on the arb page, in fairness I did prepare this one because I still thought it would be there but that's one of the reasons why I put it on the page. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with Jehochman. If the IP is Lightbreather, I think it's a rather flagrant case of avoiding scrutiny. Note that the IP denied being Lightbreather here, by implication, and posted several times more after being told about WP:SCRUTINY (which I actually do not believe any experienced user would need telling about in a situation like this). Lightbreather also denies it here, as far as I understand her, even though that is also kind of implicitly and evasively expressed. If the IP is indeed Lightbreather, I'm not impressed by the way her post there, her last so far, was framed. If it's not Lightbreather, I'm also not impressed: why not state outright "The IP is not me"? The timeline which HIAB supplies is enough for a CheckUser IMO; certainly together with the evasiveness. It's not conclusive — if it were, we wouldn't need a checkuser — it may indeed be coincidence. But it's suggestive. Bishonen | talk 14:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC).

Per Bishonen's additional diffs, which I had not seen before, I would not oppose a Checkuser, especially because ArbCom seems to be doling out additional sanctions. Jehochman 16:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please limit conversation on the SPI page to behavioral evidence only. Mike V • Talk 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Gut feelings? Chin stroking and saying "Hmmm". Really? That's where the post Arbcom fall out has taken us to? How very sad. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Nothing to do with the arbcom case; due the limitations imposed by WMF's privacy policy, SPI's are often decided on behavioral evidence alone. NE Ent 19:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC) If it's nothing to do with the arbcom case then what is it doing here? It's just a piece of post arbcom gibberish. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please limit conversation on the SPI page to behavioral evidence only. Mike V • Talk 20:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Gut feelings? Chin stroking and saying "Hmmm". Really? That's where the post Arbcom fall out has taken us to? How very sad. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the arbcom case; due the limitations imposed by WMF's privacy policy, SPI's are often decided on behavioral evidence alone. NE Ent 19:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's nothing to do with the arbcom case then what is it doing here? It's just a piece of post arbcom gibberish. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Clerk declined - I see no reason to publicly connect an account with an IP address using the CU tool. Rs chen 7754 18:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Clerk note: Please note that on the English Misplaced Pages a user cannot consent to a check to prove their innocence, so a check won’t be run solely for that reason. Also, disclosure of an IP is generally reserved for the most egregious of offenses and even then it’s preferable to disclose it privately. I agree with Rschen7754’s decline because it would be a breach of the privacy policy to provide a public, technical verification of an IP link to Lightbreather. That being said, the IP has been engaging in internal discussion, contributing to the same discussion as a registered and logged-out user, and attempting to avoiding scrutiny, all in violation of the sockpuppetry policy. I’ve compiled a number of diffs that I believe sufficiently demonstrates that Lightbreather has been editing while logged out.

Evidence
Note: Some links in the quoted comments have been removed to assist with formatting. Emphasis was not added. Lightbreather and the IP use the same expression: Lightbreather Or a "Politically Correct" place (with the aggressive capital "P" and "C" to try to belittle what I'm talking about). IP My use of an IP address is for a legitimate purpose: Privacy - with a capital "P" There's an emphasis on the number of individuals who find a pejorative offensive: Lightbreather who knows that I and hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of other people find this word offensive oh! then it's ok. what was i thinking, getting offended. my feelings and millions of others' are unimportant. IP Eric Corbett has used on Misplaced Pages ~~a particular term that~~ the word 'cunt,' which many users find highly offensive (Additional instance) even if he isn't a misogynist, this certainly shows gross insensitivity (at the least) toward the millions who consider the word misogynistic. A similar piece of evidence was highlighted: Lightbreather During related discussion on Jimbo's talk page, Eric asked Saffron Blaze if they were "hiding behind the door when God handed out brains." IP And what if he were to say in a discussion or an edit summary, "If you don't want to be called a , don't act like one"? Or "Were you hiding behind the door when God was handing out brains"? There's a shared interest in quantifying the gender of the participants: LightBreather Five men and two women went before ArbCom because of disruptions at the WP:GGTF. Only one of the 12 arbitrators was a woman. If you were to look at this case as you would a jury trial, you would note that the jury is made up of 11 men and 1 woman. Look at how those men and women voted, especially regarding Carolmooredc and Eric Corbett, both of whom have pluses and minuses going for them, albeit differing pluses and minuses. Now, imagine if the jury had been 11 women and 1 man, or even 6 women and 6 men. Do you think the outcome would be the same, especially regarding CMDC and EC, in either of those situations? I believe gender - the gender of the involved parties and the gender of the arbitrators - was a significant contributing factor in the outcome. But as long as you're happy with 85% to 90% men, and a style of "discussing" that these men (and 10% to 15% of women) are OK with, who cares, right? IP Two of the eight (including Sitush) are women, and apparently, Corbett joined in just to ask, "What's the basis for argument that calling someone a cunt is childish?" How he or anyone else can not see how off-putting this kind of language is to many people - especially women - who would like to edit on Misplaced Pages... it boggles the mind. Even if it is only symbolic - not one woman? Drawing distinctions between men and women: Lightbreather This agonistic style here is generally a male style, though not all men thrive in it - and some women do. Or at least some men and women learn how to survive in it. Those who neither thrive or survive in such an environment aren't weak or inferior or a minority, and they shouldn't have to get uncivil or endure incivility to participate. I suppose mixed company may be simplified to mean mixed gender, but I'm talking about more than gender. Gender plays a part because GENERALLY men and women tend to communicate and approach conflict differently. You're hearing treat men and women differently... as the way men treat each other is the norm and to treat women differently is to coddle them or some such. I'm saying that to treat each other in the agonistic way that one encounters on Misplaced Pages is GENERALLY the way men treat each other and is not necessarily the norm or better than other ways. Lacking any other evidence about whether someone is male, female, black, white - mixed company - we should be more civil with each other, not less. IP Where has anyone said that "that swearing is a problem for women but not for men"? Dennis' response to your questions at first seems promising, but then crosses the line by suggesting that others are suggesting that you treat women editors "as weak, delicate flowers that require men to shield them from profanity." Did you read the last section, Research article: Emotions under Discussion? Or any of the other articles that have been presented here and in related discussions? It's not that all men behave or communicate this way or that all women behave or communicate that way. (This is where Dennis' response seemed promising.) It's simply that, generally speaking, women and men have different styles of behaving and communicating, and the style that is endorsed as the acceptable, "normal" one here is the generally male style. (Probably because the editorial body is mostly male.) But who said that style is the norm? Or that to behave differently is weak or inferior? "Fuck" language gets the adrenaline up. For most men (not all) it gets their "fight" instincts up. For most women (not all) it gets their "flight" instincts up. Holding similar viewpoints on Eric Corbett: Lightbreather Regardless, it's obvious that she's burnt out. So I'll tell now what several editors rushed to tell Eric when he did the same thing called Jimbo Wales a "dishonest cunt" - after this case was opened. Carolmooredc: Unless and arbitrator asks you a direct question related to this case, hush! There might be hope for you yet, just as Eric received an early Christmas present four days ago with Proposal 2.3. John Carter and Arbitrators: Eric was blocked on average every 11-12 weeks between May 2008 and May 2013, (when he edited as Malleus Fatuorum). He was blocked on average every 9 weeks between May 2013 and October 2014 (editing as Eric Corbett). Or, if you add them all together, 30 blocks in 317 weeks = 1 block every 10.5 weeks. Jehochman and Arbitrators: I do not see anything in Proposal 2.3 that says explicitly that Eric will be site banned if his disruptive behavior continues. Carrite is, in this instance, talking out his arse (as Eric Corbett has infamously said numerous times) (edit summary) IP Wasn't this proposed earlier? There is no reason to offer special treatment for someone who has been disruptive for years with his incivility. This only gives him permission to continue the behavior, knowing that the worst that will happen is a 48-hour ban. Others need to quit making excuses and exceptions for this man and let him lie in the bed he's made. He isn't the universe's gift to Misplaced Pages. He hasn't got keyboard Tourette's. He's a man with bad habits that he has repeatedly refused to change, and his fans have repeatedly dismissed. If you trust Eric to keep his word, make the promise include apologizing for and retracting insults regardless of whether he meant them to be insulting. If someone says they're insulted, and what was said might reasonably be accepted as being insulting, he should not be able to skate. No-one should be able to, really. But this fellow has been given a pass based on this flimsy excuse again and again. This proposal is counter to the No personal attacks policy section Consequences of personal attacks. Again, there is no good reason to keep giving this man special treatment. It could well be argued that part of the reason this case happened is because he's been given special treatment for too long. If the problem is uncivil behavior, an uninvolved administrator should have the right to impose a sanction explicitly approved of here. Part of what draws out the drama so much when Corbett is involved is that everyone starts dragging up past contributions and collaborations as a pass. Long arguments ensue, nothing happens, and his victims think, Why on Earth does this person get to act this way? even if he isn't a misogynist, this certainly shows gross insensitivity (at the least) toward the millions who consider the word misogynistic. Frequent quoting of other users in rebuttals: Lightbreather , , , , , , , IP 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Repeated use of italics and quotations to emphasize a point: Lightbreather 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 IP 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Evidence

Note: Some links in the quoted comments have been removed to assist with formatting. Emphasis was not added.

Lightbreather and the IP use the same expression:

Lightbreather

Or a "Politically Correct" place (with the aggressive capital "P" and "C" to try to belittle what I'm talking about).

IP

My use of an IP address is for a legitimate purpose: Privacy - with a capital "P"

There's an emphasis on the number of individuals who find a pejorative offensive:

Lightbreather

IP

A similar piece of evidence was highlighted:

Lightbreather

During related discussion on Jimbo's talk page, Eric asked Saffron Blaze if they were "hiding behind the door when God handed out brains."

IP

And what if he were to say in a discussion or an edit summary, "If you don't want to be called a , don't act like one"? Or "Were you hiding behind the door when God was handing out brains"?

There's a shared interest in quantifying the gender of the participants:

LightBreather

IP

Drawing distinctions between men and women:

Lightbreather

IP

Holding similar viewpoints on Eric Corbett:

Lightbreather

IP

Frequent quoting of other users in rebuttals:

Lightbreather

, , , , , , ,

IP

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11

Repeated use of italics and quotations to emphasize a point:

Lightbreather

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

IP

20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

As a result, I've issued a 1 week block to Lightbreather and a 2 week anon only block for the IP, which should (hopefully) cover the remaining duration of the case. Mike V • Talk 08:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Categories: