User talk:Unbroken Chain/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Thanks!

Interesting, it seems like I'm becoming a cause celebre! I'd be interested in hearing who those all think I am. EChastain (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I hope they are wrong but I will watch to see their assumptions as well. I just remember part of the game that started this was a complaint that two editors were talking about Lightbreather on their talkpage without notifying them, interesting turn of events apparently that only applies when talking about them and not other editors. Granted she couldn't pop the note on your page right away but a ping was easily accomplished. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Where was that complaint? And who is Sue Rangell? EChastain (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't interact with Sue but if you [[1]] see the table in that link it's on the table with a handy timeline of invovlement. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand that table at all, but I'm 100% sure that I've never interacted with Sue Rangell. The evidence that I'm a sockpuppet seems so silly to me that I'm really surprised that anyone's taking it seriously. Is that list on Lightbreather's page what qualifies as "credible evidence" of a sockpuppet? EChastain (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be 100 percent honest they point out a few things that are a telling indicator you may not be a new user. What they are saying and I'm at least half sure you know already is that they think you are Sue Rangel. The amount of edits you made prior to the GGTF were enough to squeak by the auto-confirm limit to post at Arbcom. The editing history seems suggestive as well as there is overlap in editing areas mainly , Spitzer, GGTF and then the seeming dispute with CMDC and LB. The checkuser was rejected because it has been too long to draw a conclusion based on technical evidence but now a behavioral investigation will ensue. Now the one thing that can work in your favor is you can explain if you are Sue Rangel as you have not denied it and it is probably frowned upon that you have returned to old disputes but WP:Cleanstart only recommends you avoid those areas. The Idea that you quit in August just to participate in an arbcom case of the same nature is a little out of hand. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

Hello, Hell in a Bucket, the Arbitration Committee has declined the Banning Policy II arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

HIAB, by reverting him you give an irrelevant person relevancy. Even better is to put on a BIG SMILE and improve the article above and beyond what it was, and we can thank the $*%#($(% for alerting our attention to it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I understood that was the reason why you made the comment at AE (and agreed with it, though for a slightly different reason) but I also understood the perspective Newyorkbrad was approaching it from when he responded there (he's since explained that in his reply to you). I've seen both of you help the project in many different ways so didn't want either of you being misunderstood or getting drawn into that debate again. Some administrators could also easily get the wrong idea about you unnecessarily after reading Newyorkbrad's initial comment at AE or associate that with your username, which will be an unhelpful distraction from addressing the actual problems in the project; the shortage of competent editors to address them seems to be getting worse with time unfortunately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

What evidence is there that I'm Sue Rangell? I registered the account on 12/10/2014, a day before Lightbreather announced she was quitting on 13/10/2014. (Or maybe I'm psychic?) I made my first edit a day later on 13/10/2014, as it turns out the same day as she quit.

I don't see the connection with Rangell's AE warning linked to by Lightbreather. I've been editing here on and off since 2005, with sometimes years in between, so yes, I've edited before as an IP but never on gun control or Israel/Palestine issues. I'm not interested in getting into political issues. I've never edited GGTF pages. Mostly I got an account this time to have a watchlist to follow some things going on that I happened upon - (the spamming (as I saw it) of your comments, and the gang up on Eric Corbett (as I saw it) and wanted to be able to follow the sequelae without leaving bunches of tabs open all the time. Mostly I was concerned about Eric Corbett, and not because I agree with his rude comments. I think his presence is crucial. (My opinion). I value his content contributions and his enormous helpfulness to other content writers. I think if he were banned it would cause overall harm to wikipedia by demoralizing some other editors and result in making the rules more rigid, more like real work, more Americanised, and more unpleasant than it already has become. Also, I see some of his opinions, like the ones about Jimbo Wales, as political statements. If you can't criticise the "leader", then what? EChastain (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The overlap is Elliot Spitzer, Arbcom GGTF in relation to Lightbreather. The other is that it states you have a dotorate in pysch sue rangel has one in sociology. You should probably visit the sock puppet investigation it will keep you more up to date. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Elliot Spitzer, really? I've never edited that page and I don't think Lightbreather has either. I have doctorate in psychology, but User:Sue Rangell's page doesn't say she has a doctorate in sociology. But even if she did, so what. Sociology is not psychology. Knowledgekid87 urged me to but userboxes on my page.[2] Big mistake. I'm removing them. EChastain (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist) but now that I look at it...Sue has edited a different page [[3]] Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for sticking up for me. Also, it appears that Lightbreater's block has been changed regarding account creation: Salvio giuliano 01:00, 1 December 2014 Salvio giuliano changed block settings for Lightbreather with an expiry time of 2 weeks changed block settings for Lightbreather (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks

I don't really see the point of this. She hasn't been going around creating new accounts I don't think, but maybe she has. Don't know. EChastain (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

She went and used another ip to remove information about herself evading her block, she's actually gotten off extremely easy IMO. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to tell you she just did that but it seems Salvio is on it. Capeo (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just as he was on to Neotarf early on, adding her to the case. EChastain (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

‎Since you are on...

I don't think that would be a good idea — it's not vandalism, so preventing edits by other logged-out or accountless people wouldn't be a good idea. Nyttend (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC) If you look at the history it's needed, it started and continued until protected, now it has started again. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Unfuckingbelievable. Good job. Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 04:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't claim credit for another person's behavior the only credit I can claim is I can somewhat shut my mouth when I need to. I think it's a good block but we still don't want to grave dance, it's a pretty bad night for them. Whatever their faults they believed their convictions and so likely they aren't feeling to hot right now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This outing crap was way out of line.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:INDENT

Grrrrr, ya'll gotta learn how to indent ;) GoodDay (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

My wiki coding and typing is truly a nightmare sometimes sorry ;) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page

Hi!

Thanks for the report to ANI regarding this :)--5 albert square (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

NO worries happy to help. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

If it starts up again in a few hours once Jimbo's talk page is unlocked, just raise a report again at ANI. Hopefully the IP will get bored though :)--5 albert square (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, HJ Mitchell has sent me a message to say a range block is impossible due to the range of IPs involved. As I thought it's too big a range of IPs involved for that to be effective. I've checked his page today though and all seems OK so far. If you do need to report this to AIV again, as I'm aware of the history could you please ping me in the report? If I'm online I can then take a look rather than have it wait at AIV. His talk page history was in some mess thanks to those IPs 5 albert square (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Belated, but serious, and also fun

Hi Hell in a Bucket. OK, since I'm in an unfashionable time-zone this now is old news, but here goes anyway.
About this AN/I report: I strongly suggest you GGTFO Lightbreather's talk page.
(I have been waiting months to use this! ) Seriously, thank you for disengaging. I would request that you keep it that way.
Pete "for he is a mixture of gravity and waggery" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree completely but when I saw how far the bad faith actually went I realized there was no point in trying to discuss it with him. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I don't know if I've given you a barnstar yet, but you deserve it full heartedly for your calm manner in disputes, going throughout the processes and being the sane voice. I appreciate it. Tutelary (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I try very hard to maintain calm and I fail often. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

05:34:25, 3 December 2014 review of submission by Johngreenaway

• Johngreenaway (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tracey Lain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Johngreenaway (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Hell in a Bucket. Thank you very much for reviewing my Wikipedia submission on Tracey lain. I am happy to make any changes needed but I am afraid I do not understand your comments and need clarification please.

First, what do you mean by "source the lead"? I have provided multiple sources. What is "the lead" you are referring to?

Second, what do you mean by reduce "the extensive participation fault"? What part of the submission does this refer to?

John Greenaway (Johngreenaway (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC))

The first paragraph is a lead. I mean source any dob or one or two references for won awards. When I say the extensive participation my speel check seems to have done me dirty it should be part. Where it talks about her pregnant sex scenes, anal sex etc we don't really need that info. Now if she won awards for those specifically great do it lower in the article. We don't censor info but we also don't need to put that in blast on the second paragraph when it doesn't really matter for an encyclopedia article. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional information. That is much clearer. I have revised and resubmitted the article. I have removed all references to her participation in anal, pregnancy scenes etc. I have added references into the lead paragraph. I hope I have captured all the edits you require. John Greenaway. Johngreenaway (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

14:11:48, 5 December 2014 review of submission by Boogieste

• Boogieste (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Paul Butler - Guitar player, singer/songwriter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, JUst to say that I think I just "cleaned up the lead" by removing the duplication. See what you think and thanks for taking the time to read the submission! Boogieste (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks better, I'd suggest resubmitting. I made two changes as well. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

10:24:48, 5 December 2014 review of submission by 176.126.224.90

• 176.126.224.90 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Spratton Hall School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Madam/Sir I wonder if you could tell me what more needs to be referenced in the text so that it can be passed? Many thanks for your help Amanda Fleming-Jones

176.126.224.90 (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

ANything that shows it is important. I see there is two on there now so that should let it survive a little. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

12:54:07, 5 December 2014 review of submission by Boogieste

• Boogieste (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Paul Butler - Guitar player, singer/songwriter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I've referenced the D.O.B. and location, as requested - and removed phrases like "Bluegrass legend" - as also suggested. Not sure what you mean by "Clean up the lead" though? Boogieste (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There should be a lead paragraph that gives a small summary of why that person is notable and who they are. Also remove wikipedia references. We don't use ourselves to reference our information it's self serving and not nec a help in gaining credibility for the info. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

About the "Chugger (band)"-page

Hi there!

Hope all is well. I have updated and resubmitted the Draft:Chugger_(band)-page now and edited it according to your suggestions. Thanks in advance!

Best regards, Deathgroove Productions

Deathgroove (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Re-direct deleted

Hi HiaB. I've deleted the re-direct. If you think Draft:Spratton Hall School is ready for article-space, go for it.
PS: I would have said "go for your life" (Australian slang for "by all means, perform the action you requested, with my full agreement"), but there's a (no doubt apocryphal) story about a misunderstanding in FNQ during WWII:

US combat engineer: Buddy, can we borrow your [military engineering machine of some sort] for [a task for which this item is required]?

Australian combat engineer: Go for your life, mate.

<US combat engineer runs as fast as they can to the nearest air raid shelter>

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

20:53:56, 13 December 2014 review of submission by Da Degrees

• Da Degrees (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Big Lean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I made edits to the article and I hope it's less sales pitchy. Could you please review it and let me know if it's okay?

Thanks. Da Degrees (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove the youtube reference and it does look improved. I'd suggest resubmitting and then it can be reviewed again. I normally will not re-review on something just so another editor can come in and see something I might have missed and it gets approved. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

email

EChastain (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And another EChastain (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Request on 10:47:57, 23 December 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Carmen821

• Carmen821 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Carmen821 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Hell in a Bucket. I have noticed you have tagged the Citrio article as an advertisement. I am not a very experienced Wikipedian so I would appreciate any advice or help from you side concerning the way I could approve the article. Could you please tell me, what exactly makes it sound as an ad? What should I remove/add to make it acceptable for the Wikipedia tone and style? Thank you very much in advance.

Carmen821 (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Really small fixes will help, like the "unique features", likewise I'd suggest looking at the features section and pare down anything that seems to not be needed in an encyclopedia article. It's close. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Request on 17:22:17, 23 December 2014 for assistance on AfC submission by Jennger

• Jennger (talk · contribs)
  • User:Jennger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

RHello, I've recently learned that an article I submitted was declined; and I'd like more specific feedback on what I can do to improve it to meet standards for approval. The rejection of the article mentions, "Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed," which I did. All of the sources I sited are independent, third-party media outlets who wrote about the development of the company. Please help clarify. Thank you!

Jennger (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...

	Happy Holidays...
	and may the coming year bring peaceful melody accompanied by joyous harmony. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for Kyabgön Phakchok Rinpoche review

Hello! I have been working to update the page for Kyabgön Phakchok Rinpoche over the past few months. You made the article public about a month ago, which was great news. There is still a message at the top that says the article needs additional citations. Since receiving that message, I have included a number of new citations from various sources (including a monastery, a translation/publication group, a foundation, and links to Tricycle.com, where he is currently featured, alongside books published in print). Please let me know if this is acceptable or if more sources are still necessary. Many thanks! (I am new at using the Wiki talk page, so apologies if this isn't the correct format...) Changchubdawa (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

12:24:09, 2 January 2015 review of submission by Janlepkowski

• Janlepkowski (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Power flush (heating systems) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Janlepkowski (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC) I have rewritten my article on Powerflush. Am I getting there? There is very little written in published media about powerflushing or the problems relating to system contamination. The manufacturers of powerflush equipment and chemicals spend 10 years thrashing out the DWTA guide. It all gets very commercial and n one can agree anything. Powerflushing is, however, very interesting to a homeowner when British Gas tell them they need one at £900 a pop! Thats why I think its a subject worthy of a wiki page!

Jan Janlepkowski (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a lot of money! Try and fix the citations via WP:PMOS Resubmit the draft. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of submission of Dict.com

Hi, thanks for reviewing the article Dict.com. Although it was declined I appreciate you found the time to comment and help. Could you please check it again and tell me if I'm on the right track? I explained why the dictionary is unique and changed and added some information mainly at the beginning. If it still reads like an advertising, could you point out the specific parts? Thanks. Here is a direct link to the article Draft:Dict.com (JakubCer (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC))

It's getting closer. If you can try and flesh out more references to it that are seperate from the source and give detailed coverage, I suggest removing the languages provided. Overall it seems like an interesting website. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

21:51:56, 14 January 2015 review of submission by Herhabits

• Herhabits (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Joshua Sarubin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I don't understand exactly which parts of the article need reliable sources. I thought I had provided enough back up. Please advise as to what exactly needs a reliable source to verify its validity. Thank you so much.Herhabits (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC) Herhabits (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used as a reference and all sourcing should look like the top part of the article. I would scrutinize the all music source as well and then fix the formatting to have it sourced properly rather then the bare links at the bottom. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Kyabgön Phakchok Rinpoche page citations

Hello! I recently notice your removal of the "Articles and Interviews" section of this page. After going back and reviewing, I noticed two of the links did not have much useful information. The the two links to Tricycle.com I moved to the "External links" section - Tricycle is one of the leading publications on contemporary Buddhism and so would be a good source. Would you review the current sources and citations on this page to and comment on whether it is up to par at this point? The top of the page still has a box requesting more citations... Thanks! Changchubdawa (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a bad source but those are on the promotional side of things. The references (not extrnal links) should be checked by another editor but plaese do not read the external links. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Unbroken Chain. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Get it? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it ;) thanks for the heads up. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

User:DangerousPanda

Why restore a user box that claims they are an administrator willing to make difficult blocks? What's the point? We don't allow users to claim to be administrators when they aren't. I see no malice in the fact that the box was still there...but there's no reason to keep it there now. --Onorem (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

06:45:16, 24 January 2015 review of submission by Gkassar

• Gkassar (talk · contribs)
  • Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emile Bustani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have completely revised the article after it was first declined in July 2013, and made sure to avoid peacock terms and that entries are written from a neutral point of view - with inline citations ana all. As for sources, I have used the most reliable and actually available sources (pages extracts from AUB, MIT). I really don't understand why it was rejected again for the same reasons? Please help me by pointing our what exactly I should improve. Thanks in advance. GKASSAR (talk) 06:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's actually a mix of things, I wanted to see the sourcing improved mainly. The tone itself on a reread is not terribly npov. The MIT sources are interesting but to pass WP:RS i believe we should have some seperated sources, this also includes the subjects own website. You do not make any wild claims so I'm not concerned you are defaming that person. One thing I did miss is the member of parliament. I will on that basis publish it and tag it for a source improvement. Try to fix the sources or it may be a short stay on article space. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

you declined my article

Hello,

You recently declined my biography of a living person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lawrence_F._Jindra) stating that it wasn't improved from previous incarnations. I re-wrote this biography following the manual of style for wikipedia and read several other biographies of ophthalmologists. I really don't see how my submission is any different than biographies that have been accepted by wikipedia. Can you please tell me how I can improve the biography?

Thank you, Kim Kimvale1025 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well one we need 2rd party references not connected to the Dr or his employers. I'm sure he is a competent professional but we don't write articles on just competent professionals, they need to be notable through 3rd party WP:RS. I'm curious as to your connection with this doctor because I note that you have written solely written about this one person and seem to have no interests other then this. It may help you wo look at What wikipedia isn't for, found here WP:NOTPROMOTION Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

19:37:35, 27 January 2015 review of submission by Jennger

• Jennger (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Harris CapRock Communications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Hell in a Bucket! I am reaching out to see if you have any advice for me on how to improve an article I submitted that you denied. I am new to Wikipedia and tried to follow guidelines and pages of similar subject matter. Are there a few specific things you could point out to me that might help? I would appreciate it so much! Thank you. Jennger (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Jennger (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A good start is removing the promotional language and hours that you operate. Mainly I believe it is a language problem, sourcing can be improved too but it's not far off if we remove those things. I'd suggest reading WP:NOTPROMOTION Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the handy advice! I will work on these changes and try again. Jennger (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

fyi

You got mail. EChastain (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Found this: [4]: Request that Sue Rangell be prohibited from editing Spitzer material. It took me this long to figure out what ticked off LB about my edits to Robert Spitzer (psychiatrist). (She was totally focused on Robert Spitzer (political scientist) where I never edited.)

This is interesting:[5] Through StarryGrandma, I found the above. EChastain (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Looking back through what you did, I'd like to thank you for your defense of me and some other things you've done on Wikipedia. I sincerely appreciate it. Tutelary (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you 8). All of my actions done here are so we can make it better and everyone needs a level playing field until they dig their own holes. Glad to see you weren't banned btw. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Sandstein's UTP

Check WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Md_iet. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log)

reverted myself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

ARCA

I deleted my comment at LB's amendment request at ARCA. But, it's good to see that the arbitrators are coming around to my observation that the Wiki-community should handle it. :) GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Spam

Do not spam comments about the same issue to multiple user talk pages, as you have been doing, because this is disruptive. Further disruption of that nature may result in a block. I did not even read what you said, and I don't care what you said, but your spamming lit up my watchlist because you hit the talk pages of many (all?) arbitrators with apparently the same post by the looks of the section name and byte count. This is obnoxious behavior and will stop, either by your own decision to stop, or by somebody blocking your account. Enough said. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Jehochman why don't you post your dispute on the arbca page? The committee has already responded to my concerns which were in good faith and seeking a resolution that satisfis everyone. Maybe next time read the comment before opening your mouth and making yourself look less then competent in warning. Your choice but no arbs has stated anything against what I said and infact it was used to start another resolution so forgive me if I don't take your advice. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Birds of a feather...

"Let's face the facts, I talk about accountability a lot. Here's mine, I am argumentative, I get hot headed. I have a difficult time with dishonesty, corruption and controlling my mouth when provoked or under stress. I do however accept and encourage disagreements as long as they are backed by a valid rationale. I am far far from perfect, but when I'm being portrayed as the problem when I present a huge amount of evidence of behaviors and I'm still the issue I have a problem with that."[6] from Roger Davies page.

I resemble that remark to a T. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Once more

You asked about double standards. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't have to chase down every other disruptive editor on Wikipedia and sanction them before, or if, I sanction you. No, an administrator can deal with whatever disruption comes into view. Do yourself a favor and only respond to questions about your behavior from arbitrators or uninvolved editors. Everybody else, you can safely ignore (battle participants), and definitely you want to stop casting aspersions at others. Nothing any battle monger says about you can get you in trouble. What can get you in hot water is what you say and do yourself. Jehochman ^Talk 03:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely but this is and has been relevant to this case. If you read my comments in the Arca section that it appears you and others are not actually doing the due diligence and are instead doing a half cocked response. If we are aiming to fix the problem let's fix all of it and not use half measures. Can you really tell me that you would ignore 35 seperate spam posts relevant to this very situation we are discussing? Canvassing a discriminatory womens only group which is 1/2 the reason I knew about the page anyways. Can anyone honestly take claims of hounding seriously when it's plastered all over? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Jehochman, I'd like to address your other concerns if you wouldn't mind pointing out what you think is aspersions I will happily provide evidence to these claims or strike them as per wikipedia policy. I await your response. I would like to take full accountability for my actions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not interested in GGTF. The dispute is purely political and has nothing to do with articles. One example of casting aspersions is that you falsely accused me of having double standards. Jehochman ^Talk 12:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Jehochman, I'm surprised and apparently owe you an apology. Your analysis of what is happening is pretty spot on. 14:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel like an apology is needed because I wasn't offended at all; don't mention it. My point is still: do yourself a favor. When you see a political turd blossom like this one, just avoid it. Jehochman ^Talk 14:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comment

This comment was probably one of the dumbest I've seen in a long time. I get what you think you are trying to say, but you could not have said it in a worse way. What I get is that you are trying to explain that there are double standards at play in the way that feminists, and particularly radical feminists, treat men in their fight for equality. What actually came out is a ton of sexist dribble that can be summed up precisely the way GeeDubs described it. You essentially said that women are oppressed because they choose to be. Interestingly enough, coming to that conclusion would be a logical fallacy - but I don't think that's much of a defense. I think you should read this: Chait, Jonathan (27 January 2015). "Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say: How the language police are perverting liberalism". New York Magazine. Retrieved 30 January 2015..--v/r - TP 17:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well one of my mottos I live by in life is "You create your own reality, everday with everything you say and how you say it." One day Rosa Parks decided that she wouldn't live in a discriminatory fashion anymore. She decided to not sit in the back of the bus. She didn't say well the whites have to sit in the back of the bus and the blacks have to self identify and do these things to be here. She chose to create a reality that did not have those things. Did it immediately fixed the issue? No but it was a choice. I may not have expressed it in a way that reflects that meaning but that is what I meant. I will read through what you link to, I'll largely be unavailable as I have had company this weekend and I go back to work tonight again so my participation will likely be wrapping up. I doubt much I will say is going to help this along at this point and I'm going to attempt to leave others to speak up for me in a better way then I apparently have been doing and if not well I think the record here speaks for itself if someone looks at it fairly. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Rosa Parks acted while the country was on the verge of a civil movement and ready for a catalyst. Had she done what she did in a bubble, the results would have been terrible. The nation rallied around her as women and minorities need the nation to rally around them. While there are some feminists, or RadFems, who actually have exceeded equality and actually talk about a new matriarch, it shouldn't diminish the fact that there is a disparity between the treatment of men and women. But let's look at another example, Phiona Mutesi [7]. She walks hours a day to get to school to learn about chess. She has to walk through some of the worst neighborhoods, it takes two hours just to walk somewhere to get drinkable water, and because she lost her father to AIDS and her oldest sister - she has to take care of her family while her mother works. Some how, some miracle, she made it. Even with Phiona considered, we have one anecdotal modern story of someone overcoming strife. One person out of hundreds of millions able to overcome. Does that seem fair? Does that seem like 'anyone can do it'? You'll find onsies and twosies stories all around. They are miracle stories. It takes a miracle for them to happen. And it shouldn't be that way. It shouldn't take a miracle for women to be respected at work, it shouldn't take a miracle for women to be heard in a conversation, and it shouldn't take a miracle for women to make a life for themselves without men to support them. The systems in place are built to work better for the type of attitudes and behaviors exhibited by men. That is the leading argument of the gender gap task force on Wikipedia. Can women succeed on Wikipedia? Yes, if they exhibit those same behaviors. But why should they have to? Why should they have to adopt a male-behavior just to succeed? And when they do reach out beyond their stereotypical gender-behavior, why should they be judged for it? There is more going on than that women just 'let it happen' and they could succeed if they tried. It takes a lot less effort for you and I to succeed. Our behaviors fit the stereotype of male attitudes and so our behavior is accepted. Let's take GeeDubs for example. You said women would succeed on Wikipedia if they tried. GeeDubs currently sits on the highest chair in the Wikipedia hierarchy. As one of the only known females, how much crap is she currently getting for it? Crap that isn't being thrown at anyone else who holds similar views? Who on Arbcom also holds feminists viewpoints and isn't being asked to recuse because of their views? I don't always agree with GeeDubs, I think that sometimes her arguments come across as unsupported accusations in contravention to the WP:NPA. But her overall argument is valid and I think you've only managed to prove her point with the comment I linked above. The blog I linked to you articulates your point much better - give it a read.--v/r - TP 18:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I actually sent you an email with questions for you and a background. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

ARCA was wrong route

I told ya the Arbitrators would eventually see it my way. A motion to close is being considered. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Voluntary Iban

Hell in a Bucket, it looks like ARCA is going to decline my amendment request. Will you agree to a voluntary, indefinite IBAN between us? If you will accept my word, I will accept yours. Lightbreather (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• My thoughts on this are here [[8]]. I don't speak for the future but currently these are my thoughts. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I do not think an Iban is nec. I think we both took it too far. I popped off at the SPI and I could've phrased it better and I think you could do well to change your tact to not piss everyone off quite as much. Our cross in article space is absolutely zero or damn near none. Anywho, I also realize that my dispute is not and never has been your project and goals just the methodology behind it. I do not plan on calling you a liar anymore, not because I changed my mind but because I don't need to rub your nose in it when there is a dispute. I could tone down that rhetoric. So basically keep my name out of your mouth and I will do my very best to moderate my tone and keep your name out of mine. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, because the statement you gave the link to, I couldn't make out if it was an offer or acceptance of an Iban, plus, you let another editor delete it nine minutes later.[9]

FWIW, I think an Iban would demonstrate good will, and as a bonus, help to repair our reputations. I do not think I took it too far - I took it to exactly the place I was instructed to take it on December 17 - but I do agree that it blew up spectacularly. I figured that since an arbitrator had suggested it (back in December[10]) the others would look at the evidence and say, "Yes, good idea," and OK an Iban - just as GW proposed simply and early on.[11]

Since you're declining to call this an Iban, I'll only repeat what you've said to me: Keep my name out of your mouth and I will do my very best to keep your name out of mine. (I observe the civility policy, so any "tone" in what I say is 99 times out of 100 in the mind of the reader.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Hi Hell in a Bucket, how's it going? Could you please refactor or remove your comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community comments (TKOP) as they are incivil and not helpful to the discussion. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

User:CallaneccDo you really want to know lol? On a serious note I've had a discussion on this with RD and my reasoning was here [[12]]. That being said what would you like changed or diff'd I'm happy to do the latter and will grudginly change the wording if the problematic wording is pointed out. I will change the words but the meaning will not be changed, It's a different set of clothes is all, I have reasons to believe that and have a few diffs to pull if needed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been archived now, but (to reference the other discussion) please try to avoid such strong rhetoric in the future. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Callanecc, To your mind what was strong rhetoric. I stated I thought that the nomination was in bad faith, I explained in deatil below with supporting diffs why I thought it was not a on the board nomination. What would you suggest changing in that if I have those concerns and I can back them up with diffs? I'm asking because several times recently someone has spoken to me about rhetoric and I would like to understand what is so problematic because I must use it a whole lot. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes had it been backed up with diffs (and hence not WP:Casting aspersions) I would have had less of a problem with it and you would need to have included more information (as in your 22:01 February 2015 post). Having said that, it would have been reasonably likely to get the same response as it criticised the person proposing the motion not the substance of the motion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Amendment request archived

Hi Hell in a Bucket, just letting you know that an amendment request involving you has been declined by motion of the Committee and archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 18:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

about Juilliard list

Hi HIAB, about these diffs [13], [14]. Why remove Levin! I read the source and referenced it in his article (source is available to anyone with a subscription or a onetime buy). If there is something I am missing, let me know. Bammesk (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Sentry Insurance

Hello Hell in a Bucket. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Sentry Insurance, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Given how long this page has been around, and that there are a number of Google hits which I think gets it past unremarkable I'd prefer this go to AfD. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested IBAN at ANI

I have requested an IBAN between us at ANI. Lightbreather (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI remark

Hello, Hell in a Bucket. Regarding your recent comment on WP:AN/I, I would humbly like to recommend that you refactor your "tying a noose" comment. It may be perceived as a reference to lynching and has deeper implications than you may immediately realize. Considering this is a public forum, I would appreciate if you did not make references to your colleagues either being murdered or committing suicide. Regards, Harej (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

please see WP:ROPE. That's the noose I'm talking about. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Bucket, it is unclear whether assuming good faith in appropriate in this circumstance. You may not realize the "significance of your remark," or then again, you might. 1. 2. Please consider watching this video, if you do not understand why you are being asked to refactor this remark. --Djembayz (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not now not have I ever intended anybody harm here on wiki. I've referenced what I meant in the comment if people can't\won't see that feel free to change noose to WP:ROPE. I my self will not as I think I've made my meaning clear but I will not object to it being changed to WP:ROPE which is what I meant. If there is further problems with that reference maybe suggest an MFD for it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The first part of your meaning is clear-- you don't mean anybody harm on wiki. That's good. And you feel that an acceptable way of expressing frustration and annoyance is with a metaphorical reference to the murder and suicide of your colleagues. That's not so good. It's one thing to use the metaphor WP:ROPE, it's another thing to say you hope that instead of turning the situation around, your opponent will go hang themselves.

The second part of your meaning is not clear, so let's ask you directly: Are you refusing to remove the word "noose" in an effort to intimidate African-Americans out of participating on the site? --Djembayz (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact of any well respecting editor to comment regularly on the drama boards is maddening. And I can see why. Make an implication to WP:ROPE and be said that you're trying to intimidate certain races from participating from Wikipedia. It's very clearly an implication to WP:ROPE and I see no reason why he should have to change it because of other people's sensibilities. You're also trying to have your cake and eat it too. Metaphor but not a metaphor, hyperbole but not hyperbole. This is again, maddening. Tutelary (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Attempting to make a distinction here between WP:ROPE and the word "noose" without a longwinded explanation. People don't necessarily get upset about a rope, but they do get upset about a noose. Links in earlier remarks may explain why. --Djembayz (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you think any reasonable person would attribute his comments to wanting to kill African Americans rather than referencing WP:ROPE? If that answer is no, then it is absolutely nothing to be concerned about. If the answer is yes, then I fear those people's ability to distinguish legitimate implications and illegitimate implications. Tutelary (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well thanks User:Tutelary and as to User:Djembayz I'm sorry but your conjecture is really over reaching and I don't particularly feel the need to justify the usage of that essay much further then what I have. It's common usage here, if I change the word noose to give them enough rope and they will hang themselves, does it minimize or somehow make an actual hanging any less horrific. Nope, sure the word changes but the action behind is the same. Btw African American is a huge geo-bias, If I wanted to really be racist and intimidating would it matter to me if they were Americans or any of that? That you choose to infer a racist or white supremacist viewpoint is probably indictative of your own experiences from that (either side don't know you so don't know which that may be). A person gender, race or background doesn't mean a whole lot to me, if you have a good idea it wouldn't matter if you were a gay, transgender, bat shit crazy or 10 years old, a good idea is a good idea. Just do me a favor, if you don't like noose change it to WP:ROPE, I'm empowering you to make that change with my blessing. Let me throw this out, I'm half Mexican and I'm marrying a Filipino who for all intents and purposes in summer looks very dark so to think I'm a white supremacist is a little offbase...on a side note if you are "african american" I will take issue there and tell you that you are not despite what you believe. You are American period point blank the end and that is a far more beautiful thing to be an american and not a quantified american. Here's a funny, at least I hope you will think it's a funny [[15]] it's meant as something light hearted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

HiaB, thanks for that olive branch on this issue. I think everyone appreciates that you were using the term metaphorically - it's just a really chilling allusion, and one we as a community really should think about not using. I'm sure we could make the point that a person's behaviour is wanting, without mentioning execution, strangling, etc. The Interior (Talk) 17:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well in this case the rope reference was the most apt I thought. Honestly at this point I didn't want to get drug in this (ani clusterfuck, and this the child of that clusterfuck ) any further. I disagree with the eventual outcome, I think that I've been proven correct over time and ultimately I'll be proved correct again unless radical changes are made (possible, unlikely but possible) and at this point the quickest path out of the encyclopedia for that editor is to now let them continue the destruction, in that essence only time will tell. I've tried several times to let that play out but damn it I hate it when I see people masquerading under a good message and be underhanded about it so in that part removing me will certainly be less headache for me not having to try and reason through the manipulations and convulated justifications. I'm a simple person I say what I mean, I may not always communicate it the best but when I state a principle I try to actually follow the principle because my integrity means much more to me then an outcome or advocation. Editors all and not just LB should consider that change effected by underhanded, manipulative and hypocritical means is not a good change. You can't pick a piece of candy out of the gutter and put a new wrapper on it and just give it to a kid or rather you can but it's your conscience. That's what Lightbreather is doing to this message, she's trampling the candy in the gutter and trying to serve it up to everyone as something pure when it is not even close. The facts are the blocks are happening the best part is I didn't have any involvement with the last 2 blocks so there is at least a glimmer of hope. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Now subject to a community imposed sanction

Pursuant to this discussion on ANI you are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other, broadly construed. This restriction will be enforced by blocks escalating in length. As usual you can appeal the sanction to AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Shraddha Kapoor

Hi. Could you please take a look at this? Despite our previous consensus, this editor is hell-bent on removing the note and re-adding Kapoor's birthday. Not sure if it is another sock of Smauritius or an unrelated account. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change..that being said I still think that we should be using the previous or none at all. I've scrutinized Xmisstree a few times and they are not a sock of Smauritius. They were active during some of our sleeper sweeps and the account has been active since 2013. I'd say an application of BRD specifically the RD parts to get to the bottom. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice

In essence you are over-ruling arbcom sanctions and it's now being used as an excuse to leave a blocked sock unblocked. This can be grounds grounds for arbcom action against you. Please rectify the matter. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been discussing the matter on the functionaries list with the arbitrators. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions restriction

Please note and abide by the restriction on your editing that I have placed upon you here.

If you wish, you may appeal this sanction either to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or within the arbitration case, but I strongly counsel you not to do so.

Proceed accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that a person must be warned first and I have not recieved any notice of this ever. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think NYB's message is your notice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Liz I'm constantly astounded that admin are not familiar with the processes needed. See [[16]] and to save you the time let me just quote a small section

• "No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:

   The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
   The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
   The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

" That being said NYB has already said this sanction is moot see [[17]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The specific sanction I imposed is moot, so further "paperwork" regarding it is not needed. If anyone else wants to follow up, they can do so independent of my action. Hopefully Hell in a Bucket will take into account the guidance he has been provided today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the notification on the ANI post, HIAB. My reply here: [18], you may also notice from RO's talk page that she's emailing other admins, notably Chillum and probably Dennis Brown. Montanabw^(talk) 20:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I'm trying not to do too much digging and want to emphasize that I am not saying anybody is right or wrong. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I do want to make it extremely clear per this accusation that the IP of RO editing logged out was publicly viewable as of when I posted the correction at the duck box page last night. I have no magic pixie dust to find user locations. I posted the diff at ANI this morning. I do not believe in "outing" people, I am just trying to track down a sockpuppet who seems very similar to one (ItsLassieTime) that made my life quite miserable about this time of year back in 2009. Montanabw^(talk) 22:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Who are you, Hell in a Bucket? You sent me a nasty message I just noticed, about supposed "disruptive editing", threatening to BLOCK ME FROM EDITING.

• You blatantly violated the Wikipedia policy of "assume good faith".
• You failed to follow the procedures listed under "Disruptive Editing".
• You were rude, and
• You made no attempt to contact me to get my point of view.
  
  

I want an apology, and I want a civilized discussion of the issues. SFFrog 12:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, so far as I know, this is the only way to contact you. If there is a better way, please let me know. SFFrog 12:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think Andy Dingley says it best on your page. The edits you made were grounds for a block it's a BLP violation and you added it for no other reason then spite, unless you have a good reason to insert your own analysis of this mans faith that doesn't involve breaches of WP:NPOV, and WP:OR Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Kohs vandalism

Hi. In this post at Wikipediocracy, Greg links to this Google spreadsheet which appears to list the diffs for all of his experimental vandalism. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice but quite a few people were right, my involvement only gave Kohs quasi relevance and I don't care to do so again. Interesting that out of everyone involved only 2 people were given this notice. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted a couple of them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

This notice was because you contributed to the case request page. You haven't been added as a party, although it is standard practice that we reserve the right to add parties as appropriate.

To clarify what I said elsewhere, editors banned from interacting with Lightbreather are reminded that the banning policy states that:

"if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:reply to editor Y in discussions or make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere onWikipedia, whether directly or indirectly".

This includes case talk pages. However, while the Committee allows editors some leeway to respond to statements about them on the evidence and workshop case pages, they may not participate in the case except to respond with statements about allegations that have been made about them". Such statements that they do make must be brief, to the point, and civil. Editors with interaction bans who fail to comply with the letter or spirit of this very limited exemption will be treated as though they breached the interaction ban. Dougweller (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements

Because of the unusual number of participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather arbitration case, the consensus of the Arbitration Committee is that:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for participation on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case: special arangements

Because of the unusual number of potential participants with interaction bans in the Lightbreather case, the committee has made special arrangements to enable i-banned editors to post and respond evidence about each other. These are as follows:

1. All i-bans and associated restrictions are suspended for the purpose of participating on the /Evidence page. This suspension extends solely and exclusively to the /Evidence page but some tolerance will be given on the /Evidence talk page to link to material on the /Evidence page.

2. For simplicity, and for the purposes of this case only, one-way i-bans are regarded as two-way i-bans.

3. Threaded interactions of any description between participants are prohibited on both the /Evidence and the /Evidence talk pages.

4. Similar arrangements apply to /Workshop page and the /Workshop talk page.

The original announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Apologies on the double post; you were on both lists directed by the Committee. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)