This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lightbreather. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Please consider deleting your sandbox. I get that you think all IPs are out to get you, but this looks like you're building a list of everyone who's ever disagreed with you and are trying to shoehorn us all into some huge conspiracy. Yes, you don't like IPs, but that doesn't mean you have the right to drag everyone who doesn't want to create an account into your paranoid world. 194.78.58.10 (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
It's good advice, but c'mon. I get that you think all IPs are out to get you? Shoehorn us all into some huge conspiracy? You don't like IPs? Your paranoid world?
And what's with the peculiar moving of comments that aren't your own on someone else's talk page?
Unless a person is double-naught spy skilled at memorizing many long strings of numbers, it's kinda hard to remember which IPs have edited in good faith and which ones are playing dirty pool. And among the IPs/puppets who have interacted at the GGTF ArbCom and here in the past couple of weeks, there have been a few who are "out to get" me. Lightbreather (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Proposed I-ban between you and Hell in a Bucket
Hi Lightbreather. Keeping in view the recent interactions between you and HiaB, I have proposed an I-ban between you two [1] directly below this [2]. Although I am not too familiar with the history between you two, what I have seen in the past month or so seems more than enough to think that an I-ban between you two has become necessary. It should bring some peace of mind for both, and also benefit the project because the project could hope to get some nice, more productive output from two eds. I certainly do not want to pressure anyone into accepting anything, and would surely like some others to offer their opinions / criticisms / suggestions on this proposal, and hope both of you would give serious consideration to this proposal. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm all for stopping the madness. Honestly my head is hammered today so I probably will not be on too much today either way to discuss it further until later tonight. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am still drinking my coffee, and pondering what I want to do next. I'll consider this option, but won't say for sure until later today or maybe tomorrow. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I think for the immediate future (3 - 6 months) this would be a wise choice. We can revisit it then to determine if the issues surrounding the dispute between you two has settled down enough where you two can talk without trying to spit in each others faces. Because, right now, the only thing you two communicate is insults and accusations.--v/r - TP21:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am still thinking about it. Also, although I agree that I have made allegations against Hell in a Bucket, I don't recall insulting him - unless the allegations themselves are considered insults, but I believe I backed them up with evidence. Lightbreather (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Some of the accusations I find insulting but from a manners POV, Lightbreather is usually very polite, that's part of what frustrates me so much dealing with her, she has the potential that Neotarf or CMDC didn't to actually accomplish things IMO. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I am not so much concerned with "civility" here, although that may be a plausible issue. What I am thinking about is words like "productive", "useful", "beneficial". I do not foresee anything productive / useful / beneficial coming out of interactions, and although I do not like saying this, I only foresee the opposite of those things being produced from interactions, and taking away a lot of yours, and this projects time, energy and peace-of-mind resources in the bargain. An indef I-ban looks like a good idea to me.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
@Two kinds of pork: you are not welcome on this page if you're going to talk about/to me like that. I socked, yes, though not for the reason that I was "busted." Also, I've done my time, and then some. But most importantly, I. DID NOT. LIE. An accusation of lying is a severe accusation, and without evidence it is casting aspersions. If you will please strike that part of your comment, I will strike this part. Otherwise, stay off of my page and stop repeating this lie. Lightbreather (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh. You want to continue argueing who did / did-not do what wrong / right, instead of finding the way forward ? I suggest an indef I-ban between LB and you too is necessary.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
You can discuss such things on one of the noticeboards but there is little point in suggesting it here. Even if the users agree it will still not be binding if broken. If the users are willing to avoid each other then no ban is needed. Chillum08:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Voluntary, indefinite IBAN between HIAB and LB
@Hell in a Bucket: Will you agree to a voluntary, indefinite IBAN between us? If you will accept my word, I will accept yours. If either of us wants to lift the ban, we can go to the other's talk page and ask civilly. Lightbreather (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Here's my problem with an interaction ban, everyone who disagrees with you will eventually be on an Iban. Seriously and I can only comment on what I've seen but it seems like anyone who disagrees with you is the problem. The level of personal responsibility is very low, or at least it appears to me to be that way. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I was undecided yesterday, I was suffering a self inflicted hangover and that's why I stated I would discuss it further when I felt better.. The answer to your question, no I am not under any sanctions, Ibans or otherwise. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry you weren't feeling well. As for Ibans, I don't have any either. I don't think we should be worrying about how many you or I might have in the future. What I want to know is, will you agree to a voluntary, indefinite Iban, that we can talk about in the future when we're ready to agree on lifting it? Lightbreather (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Help me understand what this will accomplish? I've given this some thought and what happened, yes I think that your claims about outing, harrassment etc need to stop. I can't make you not feel that way but your interpretations are contrary as to what is considered those things in the community. My actions here have been to hold you responsible for editing logged out, I have held you accountable for outing other editors. I say I but I mean I was involved with those, obviously the actual judgement came down from other editors. An interaction ban would not stop a report on socking, it wouldn't stop the behaviors period. I've done research of various things I've told you since the inception of the actions leading up to the GGTF case from August on [[4]] and again my wall of post from Sunday some of the same things are present. The Iban perturbs me because it seems to me is that the only function it would serve would be a mistaken shield from someone that has followed encyclopedia policy to arrive at this point as I did in the lead up to the block. That's why I've been resistant to an Iban or the things OrangesrYellow or Tparis said because I remember the attempts made to actually talk this over with you. The common theme is that everyone that disagrees is wrong and everyone that agrees is helpful. At what point does the people here think that you aren't disrupting the encyclopedia to argue your case and doing it because you can't work the other people here? I personally think you have the ability to do so but you refuse to do it. I don't expect you to agree with what I wrote but these are my thoughts about it overall. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
At this, simply adding a brief FOF to the Gamergate GenderGap case stating that a voluntary IBAN has been agreed, along with a voluntary (but enforcement) IBAN as a remedy, seems the route forward of least drama as it can be achieved with no fingerpointing. Do either LB or HIAC object to this? Roger Daviestalk05:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Considering neither LB nor HIAB are parties to that case, just how on earth are you going to make a FOF? Oh wait, you'll just drum something up behind closed doors again? You're doing a hecka job there Brownie.Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon07:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I misspoke; I had the other GG case in mind. We could add a FOF and remedy to that via a request at WP:ARCA, or an IBAN could be handled at WP:AE under the FFTF discretionary sanctions. The point is appropriate low drama procedures - which could be used, if desired - are already in place, Roger Daviestalk07:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually we weren't a nbamed party to the case request but that isn't the be all and end all, that list is made by editors like you and me. Both of us were quite involved despite the protests to the contrary. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
In fact, considering Two Kinds of Porks' repeated baiting[5][6] and casting aspersions,[7][8][9] and a personal attack on an ArbCom member[10] here on my talk page, and considering that I've told him he's unwelcome here[11] and asked him outright to leave me alone[12][13] can we please include him, too? Lightbreather (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Roger Davies, I think the finger pointing has already been done, it's the continued finger pointing that has me concerned. From Early Septmber to the end of November I didn't talk to Lightbreather. The problem only came when I (and others) uncovered the socking. I am resistant to Ibans when the behavior on my end was clearly a policy based approach. It may have been the most sensitive one but it was inside policy. In essence it comes off as a conseq Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no opinion on whether anyone is engaging in misconduct. What I talked about was ways of formalising entirely voluntary arrangements between you and one or more editors. However, going down this route would require the explicit agreement of all the people covered by the IBAN. If they don't wish to enter into a voluntary agreement, then obviously no voluntary agreement can take place. In such circumstances, all the the usual dispute resolution processes are open to you (or anyone else for that matter). These could include reports to WP:ANI or, if the dispute/s involve/s GenderGap task force interactions, to WP:AE as the topic is now under discretionary sanctions. Roger Daviestalk14:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy to help, though not sure how I would. You two can decide to just avoid each other (without any enforcement), but Chillum is right that a formal IBAN should be discussed in a wider venue. GorillaWarfare(talk)04:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
@HiaB. You may not see it like this. Maybe it is difficult to see this from your perspective. "Missing the forest for the trees" comes to mind. Whatever. From my perspective, the discourse between both of you has degraded way below acceptable levels. You say fingerpointing is continuing. Correctly. It is an unproductive activity for both, no matter who is doing it, and I suggested an I-ban only so that activities like that stop, and the discourse should not continue to degrade more and more, as it most surely will if the I-ban is not implemented. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand the reason why you did it and honestly I'm not upset it was. I was just trying to understand the context behind, I know it doesn't always seem lke it but I do think about things and attempt to alter my approaches when it is needed. I'll giveit some thought but I understand you are only doing what you thought is the best solution for the situation and it may well be, I just think a discussion is a good idea. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
I see that you don't actually read comics yourself. There are some very fine comics on that list of feminist comics (and some other ones, admittedly.) However, nothing is for everyone. If working on the article is arousing any curiosity about the content, I could recommend some material that might be to your tastes, if I knew a bit more about what your tastes were (modern pop culture tastes tend to be the best indicator; liking Mark Twain is apt only to get people recommending comics adaptation of Tom and Huck... although there have been some pretty ones of those.)
Thanks for the offer, @NatGertler: I've actually already ordered a couple from the list, just to see if I enjoy them. On a separate note, please have a care with your edit summaries.[14] My edit was done in GF to separate one topic from another, and if you look at the result,[15] nothing was lost in the process - including signatures. Lightbreather (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, if you go back to the version you left when you edited, you will find that the entry "Thanks for fixing The Maxx sourcing." was hanging out there at the end of a section, with no indication of who had written it. (Perhaps you think it would've simply been associated with the next comment, but had anyone added any more responses to the thread, even that tenuous linkage would have been gone.) You had also chosen to refactor my message by inserting bracketed terms into my post. There was no failure to assume good faith in my edit summary, just a simple expression of the problems with the results of your edits that caused me to choose to undo it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I stand corrected on that last line, but I think separating the Priya's Shakti discussion from The Maxx discussion was an acceptable TPO move (adding the sig). But all's well that ends well. Lightbreather (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh, there is a case to be made for separating the topics (although the conversation remains short enough that I don't think it causes a real problem.) But inserting your own words into someone else's comment is almost never the right thing to do, and in the case of the words you added into mine, it was both unneeded and inaccurate; the thing you cast me as saying was not what I was saying.
I'd be interested in hearing what you think of the comics you've ordered, once you read them. (I'm always interested in hearing how new and newly-returned comics readers react to the material they choose; sometimes it's easy for longtimers to sense what a new reader will judge as clear or confusing, or what will seem novel and what trite.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, noticed you tried to switch the image on Carol Danvers to the newer costume. Seems like it didn't stick due to it being so recent since you're working on the 2010s section I think this would be a better image there personally:
It's promotional art by Jamie McKelvie, the man who redesigned her suit in 2012 and is, to me anyway, much better art overall than the current 2010 pic. I have no idea how to upload images to WP or any of that though so I figured I'd just point it out as something you may be able to use.Capeo (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
First, thank you for your good faith efforts to improve Ms. Marvel related articles. However in the spirit of collaborative editing, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, we have developed the Bold, Revert, Discussion cycle, which simply states after a bold change is made to an article and it is subsequently reverted, please discuss the proposed change and seek consensus instead of re-reverting. Re-reverting often leads to edit warring or can sometimes be construed as edit warring in itself. Thanks again and happy editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm so sorry, for some reason I thought you were new. In retrospect, I hope that didn't come off as patronizing. Anyway, I'll look out for the discussion and hopefully a productive collaboration.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem. FWIW, I didn't really think of it as a bold edit, so much as a necessary correction, since the source cited didn't say what the article indicated that it said. But, as I said, I will be starting a discussion soon. Lightbreather (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of collaborative editing ;) I made an edit to one of the sentences you changed. I felt like too many sentences started with "she said" or some for of that in a row. I didn't change the meaning at all. If you don't like it feel free to revert. Capeo (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I thought you guys were talking about the Carol Danvers article. My mistake. The above still applies though. Capeo (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Experienced editors with this badge have committed to welcoming guests, helping new editors, and upholding the standards of the Teahouse by giving friendly and patient guidance—at least for a time.
Hosts illuminate the path for new Wikipedians, like Tōrō in a Teahouse garden.
