Content deleted Content added
→Lightburst's oppose: Reply Tag: Reply |
|||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
*'''FTR''' I disagree with this sanitizing effort {{ping|Ritchie333}}. Moving single ivotes or discussions to this talk page removes the ability for others to easily see the debate. We do not do this anywhere else on this project where consensus is being built. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 14:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC) |
*'''FTR''' I disagree with this sanitizing effort {{ping|Ritchie333}}. Moving single ivotes or discussions to this talk page removes the ability for others to easily see the debate. We do not do this anywhere else on this project where consensus is being built. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst|talk]]) 14:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:Yes, can we move this back? It's a bit too early to relegate this to the talk page. We should only do that for those borderline ignominious votes which spark off lengthy chains of censure and argument and "could we all stop badgering this oppose !voter?" Cheers, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC) |
*:Yes, can we move this back? It's a bit too early to relegate this to the talk page. We should only do that for those borderline ignominious votes which spark off lengthy chains of censure and argument and "could we all stop badgering this oppose !voter?" Cheers, '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC) |
||
*:Agree with {{ping|Lightburst}}. Though I support this candidate, there is no apparent need for this sequestering of discussions. This should not become [[Standard operating procedure|SOP]]. Ever. I'm reaching out to {{ping|Ritchie333}} to ask why he thought this was necessary. [[User:GenQuest|<span style="color:Purple; text-shadow:pink 0.1em 0.2em 0.1em;"><i>G</i>en<i>Q</i>uest</span>]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:GenQuest|<span style="color:Purple; text-shadow:Pink 0.1em 0.2em 0.1em;">"scribble"</span>]]</sup></small> 17:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:25, 13 June 2023
RSchen7754's oppose
- I share the concerns Joe Roe expressed, except a bit more strongly. I am also disappointed in their reactions here, where they appeared to overlook the policy violations and lack of accountability of the most prominent NPP reviewer. It leads me to question whether they will enforce policy fairly, if this behavior is being tolerated in the process where they are NPP coordinator. --Rschen7754 18:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- If anybody ever asks why I don't go for RfA (not that they'd have any reason to), this here is pretty much it. "Oh, but one day you took part in a discussion where someone said something, and you said another thing I didn't fully agree with, and you didn't even say 'please' and 'sorry'..." And then we wonder why there's a shortage of admins. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- ^^ - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- It went a bit beyond disagreement, those comments gave off the impression of "Onel5969 can do no wrong" which was quite disturbing. When we say that about any editor, including myself... well, it leads to enabling behavior. --Rschen7754 02:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- I didn't see that at all. What I took away from that thread is that November Linguae thought Onel5969 brought a lot of positive contributions to NPP and is one of the project's most prolific participants, and while his conduct could be improved, it wasn't directly at the point of sanctionable behaviour, in their opinion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- It went a bit beyond disagreement, those comments gave off the impression of "Onel5969 can do no wrong" which was quite disturbing. When we say that about any editor, including myself... well, it leads to enabling behavior. --Rschen7754 02:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- @DoubleGrazing. You're spot on. Same here. — kashmīrī TALK 10:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- ^^ - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- If anybody ever asks why I don't go for RfA (not that they'd have any reason to), this here is pretty much it. "Oh, but one day you took part in a discussion where someone said something, and you said another thing I didn't fully agree with, and you didn't even say 'please' and 'sorry'..." And then we wonder why there's a shortage of admins. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Lightburst's oppose
- After considering the candidate's answers I have moved from neutral. According to their answer to question one, they hope to work in CSD, and RD1. I see only one quality article that they created so I am troubled by someone who wants to work in those areas. Joe Roe has also pointed out in question eight that the editor has minimal NPP experience. The editor does much work in the technical areas and they will not need the tools to continue. Lightburst (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- How is creating an article necessary to understand copyright deletion? I work in NPP and AFC and have experience in copyright. Yet I haven’t written an article. I personally don’t see a correlation between copyright understanding and article creation. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- Unless I am reading your stats wrong you have been editing for 3 months; the candidate has been editing for 14 years. You are also not applying for a lifetime appointment. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure how that’s relevant… I was simply trying to say that writing articles isn’t the only thing that matters when dealing with copyright. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Unless I am reading your stats wrong you have been editing for 3 months; the candidate has been editing for 14 years. You are also not applying for a lifetime appointment. Lightburst (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- A look through Novem's CSD log shows that he has a bit of experience in G12 nominations, with a pretty high accuracy. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- How is creating an article necessary to understand copyright deletion? I work in NPP and AFC and have experience in copyright. Yet I haven’t written an article. I personally don’t see a correlation between copyright understanding and article creation. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 23:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
- FTR I disagree with this sanitizing effort @Ritchie333:. Moving single ivotes or discussions to this talk page removes the ability for others to easily see the debate. We do not do this anywhere else on this project where consensus is being built. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, can we move this back? It's a bit too early to relegate this to the talk page. We should only do that for those borderline ignominious votes which spark off lengthy chains of censure and argument and "could we all stop badgering this oppose !voter?" Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with @Lightburst:. Though I support this candidate, there is no apparent need for this sequestering of discussions. This should not become SOP. Ever. I'm reaching out to @Ritchie333: to ask why he thought this was necessary. GenQuest "scribble" 17:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)