User talk:Lightburst: Difference between revisions
Lightburst (talk | contribs) →Your action at RfA: Happy editing |
Lightburst (talk | contribs) going on a short vacation |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{vacation|[[User:Lightburst |Lightburst]]|from=15 February 2024|until=19 February 2024}} |
|||
{{semiretired}} |
{{semiretired}} |
||
Revision as of 17:27, 15 February 2024
 | Lightburst was away on vacation from 15 February 2024 to 19 February 2024 and may not have responded swiftly to queries. |  |
NPP Awards for 2023
|
The New Page Patroller's Barnstar | |
| For over 100 article reviews during 2023. Well done! Keep up the good work and thank you! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
Orphaned non-free image File:The First Hellcat Ace Book Jacket by Hamilton McWhorter III.png
Thanks for uploading File:The First Hellcat Ace Book Jacket by Hamilton McWhorter III.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| This award is given in recognition to Lightburst for collecting at least 25 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC) |
January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Re-reviews award
|
The Teamwork Barnstar | |
| This award is given to Lightburst for doing over 25 re-reviews, in the January 2024 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC) |
DYK for August Palmisano
On 12 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article August Palmisano, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when tavern operator August Palmisano was killed in a 1978 car bombing, authorities suspected organized crime in Milwaukee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/August Palmisano. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, August Palmisano), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Okauchee Lake
Hello, Lightburst. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Okauchee Lake".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Your action at RfA
Hey.
Repeating what I said here, per the 2015 RfA reforms crats are empowered to make clerking actions, such as those done by AmandaNP a short while ago. Will you please self-revert this? Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I see that Amanda has already undone this. If you wish to appeal the removal, then I would suggest that you follow her advice and make a request at WP:BN. Please do not remove it again. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: Thanks for the messages. I hope we can work together on this great project. I am not appealing, but I moved my own vote to oppose as a placeholder. I am not going to edit war. The RFA process is badly when the majority voters can cancel the votes of the minority voters. Lightburst (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
when the majority voters can cancel the votes of the minority voters
That's not what happened here though. Homeostasis07's vote was the equivalent of chucking a grenade and running for the hills. On any other area of the project, the extremely serious and wholly unsupported aspersions that they cast about another editor would have been challenged, and without a relatively swift response (ie, within 24 hours) been removed per multiple policies (WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS). You cannot say what Homeostasis07 said about another editor without proof. It is only because of a quirk of the RfA process, where we expect crats to take those actions, and how that expectation interacts with the expectation that the role of the crats is to not take controversial actions, that our normal procedures for dealing with this sort of issue don't happen. Basically no-one is either willing or feels able to enforce our normal conduct policies.- We are in agreement that RfA is broken, but in my opinion the reason it is broken is because it is the one area where we don't consistently enforce our conduct policies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: I like you, and the fact that you talk with me rather than about me. Kudos! So strike the aspersion... not the vote. In my struck neutral I alluded to the "snowball fight" that Homeostasis07 had with the candidate. It is obvious that Homeostasis07 was still smarting over that incident. And they are entitled to oppose based on a personal experience just as Tamzin voted based on a personal experience in The Night Watch RFA. We need to let it go, it takes all of us to build this encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
It is obvious that Homeostasis07 was still smarting over that incident.
Sure, but that wasn't the thrust of their vote. The background interaction at TFA was there to set the tone and give a little background of what followed. The thrust of their oppose was because of off-wiki meatpuppetry allegations. That's a serious allegation to make against any user, let alone one that the community in general is not set up to handle. This is also one of those situations where, if the allegations hold out as true ArbCom would be extremely likely to desysop, if not indef. Had Homeostasis simply ended their vote with the TFA remark, I don't think everything else that's happened, including this discussion, would have happened. Hell, had they waited to oppose until after they had sent the evidence email to ArbCom and made a vote likeOppose - poor off-wiki conduct, I've emailed evidence of this to ArbCom
, there would have been a collective "huh?" but there wouldn't have been cause to strike or redact the vote.- Tamzin's oppose of TNW is a different beast entirely. The emphasis behind their oppose was based purely on on-wiki conduct, and was made with supporting evidence. Whether or not you agree with the points they made, or how the result of that vote played out, it was made entirely within the realm of our conduct policies. Sideswipe9th (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: In the RTH RFA I looked and saw that Joe Roe had some scraps with them. So they opposed at the RTH RFA. In the Leeky RFA TIG had their lone oppose struck and I reinstated it. Another RFA completed and an oppose was struck after closure. I can name others who were blocked for daring to oppose. How voting should work - editors should vote based on their own reasons. I think we need to protect an editor's right to vote - especially when they are all alone in their vote. Homeostasis07 intended to vote Oppose and we ought to allow them to do so and strike the offending comment about off wiki accusations. Lightburst (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Lightburst. While I have no opinion on your !vote in the latest RfA, I don't like seeing people getting their personal opinions badgered, and I hope you're holding up alright amidst this current discussion. I don't think I could have done much to get prevent you getting badgered at my RfA, but the least I can do is apologize for the attention and flak you received. The Night Watch (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @The Night Watch: I appreciate the sentiment! I imagine you will eventually prove the all of that hullabaloo in your RFA was wrongheaded. Have a great day and happy editing! Lightburst (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Lightburst. While I have no opinion on your !vote in the latest RfA, I don't like seeing people getting their personal opinions badgered, and I hope you're holding up alright amidst this current discussion. I don't think I could have done much to get prevent you getting badgered at my RfA, but the least I can do is apologize for the attention and flak you received. The Night Watch (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: In the RTH RFA I looked and saw that Joe Roe had some scraps with them. So they opposed at the RTH RFA. In the Leeky RFA TIG had their lone oppose struck and I reinstated it. Another RFA completed and an oppose was struck after closure. I can name others who were blocked for daring to oppose. How voting should work - editors should vote based on their own reasons. I think we need to protect an editor's right to vote - especially when they are all alone in their vote. Homeostasis07 intended to vote Oppose and we ought to allow them to do so and strike the offending comment about off wiki accusations. Lightburst (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: I like you, and the fact that you talk with me rather than about me. Kudos! So strike the aspersion... not the vote. In my struck neutral I alluded to the "snowball fight" that Homeostasis07 had with the candidate. It is obvious that Homeostasis07 was still smarting over that incident. And they are entitled to oppose based on a personal experience just as Tamzin voted based on a personal experience in The Night Watch RFA. We need to let it go, it takes all of us to build this encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: Thanks for the messages. I hope we can work together on this great project. I am not appealing, but I moved my own vote to oppose as a placeholder. I am not going to edit war. The RFA process is badly when the majority voters can cancel the votes of the minority voters. Lightburst (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)