User talk:Lightburst: Difference between revisions

I’m sorry some users insist on treating you as the community punching bag. I probably still wouldn’t agree with you if I was still active in XFD but I at least seek appropriate venues for such disputes instead of insulting people behind their backs. Dronebogus (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dronebogus: Thanks so much for stopping by. I think you and I both grew as editors in our time here. I am most proud that our hatchets were buried long ago. Lightburst (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism by fire. I know what you’re going through, though at least I’m not aware of anyone doxxing me to win a deletion argument Dronebogus (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wm335td blocked

This is notice about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightburst. I guess I'll just ask; why the votestacking? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees: You opened and closed your own half-assed investigation basing it on suppositions and innuendo? Stay off my talk page with your phony investigations. Same vocabulary? Same interest in Tuskegee Airmen? as the WM account? I hope that you have the integrity to retract your erroneous conclusions. You should have a checkuser check my account and then apologize for using your position to smear me. I have no socks and never have. Such a shame that you go off half cocked like this. Lightburst (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Lightburst, I'm really not trying to get at you like that. But I wouldn't have blocked the account if I wasn't completely confident that you operated it in a way that evaded scrutiny. You confirmed the 2019 socks with the screenshot you uploaded. If you're not Wm, how do you explain about every vote matching? That's not the same for other ARS members, or editors who share your point of view. How do you explain the topic overlaps and overlap on several obscure articles? The editor interaction report I cited doesn't lie. The username doesn't lie. I know there are some editors who would be glad to make spurious accusations against you, but I am not one of them.

The Wm account is stale-- a CU wouldn't prove or disprove anything. And because the Wm account is stale, I didn't block the Lb account. Everything I said at the SPI was true, so I will not retract any of it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees: "I am not trying to get at you" but let me go back a half a decade and then start a SPI, and then convict you in absentia based on zero evidence and no input from anyone - your evidence is not evidence at all, it is 100% inferences. After you convict me, you now ask me to explain why someone edited articles that I also edited.

I did not confirm any socking in that old communication with DoRD or with a screenshot that I cannot even see.

All you have done here is create drama and lose an editor. Probably your goal. Nothing you said was true, your suspicions about numbers in usernames and the editing "obscure" article's are not facts they are actually the exact language of the WPO folks. I have no way to prove my innocence and you now say a checkuser cannot even help me clear my name. Your action here and refusal to retract is the last straw for me so I am closing my account and scrambling the password. Congrats on your ham fisted smear job, and good luck with the project. Lightburst (talk) 00:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 ::I'm sorry Lightburst, I'm really not trying to get at you like that. But I wouldn't have blocked the account if I wasn't completely confident that you operated it in a way that evaded scrutiny. You confirmed the 2019 socks with the [[c:File:Screen Shot 7.38.55 PM.png|screenshot you uploaded]]. If you're not Wm, how do you explain about every vote matching? That's not the same for other ARS members, or editors who share your point of view. How do you explain the topic overlaps and overlap on several obscure articles? The [https://sigma.toolforge.org/editorinteract.py?users=Lightburst&users=Wm335td&users=&startdate=&enddate=&ns=&server=enwiki editor interaction report I cited] doesn't lie. The username doesn't lie. I know there are some editors who would be glad to make spurious accusations against you, but I am not one of them.
 ::The Wm account is stale-- a CU wouldn't prove or disprove anything. And because the Wm account is stale, I didn't block the Lb account. Everything I said at the SPI was true, so I will not retract any of it. [[User:Moneytrees|Moneytrees🏝️]][[User talk:Moneytrees|(Talk)]] 23:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
+:::{{ping|Moneytrees}} "I am not trying to get at you" but let me go back a half a decade and then start a SPI, and then convict you in absentia based on zero evidence and no input from anyone - your evidence is not evidence at all, it is 100% inferences. After you convict me, you now ask me to explain why someone edited articles that I also edited.{{pb}}I did not confirm any socking in that old communication with DoRD or with a screenshot that I cannot even see. {{pb}}All you have done here is create drama and lose an editor. Probably your goal. Nothing you said was true, your suspicions about numbers in usernames and the editing "obscure" article's are not facts they are actually the exact language of the WPO folks. I have no way to prove my innocence and you now say a checkuser cannot even help me clear my name. Your action here and refusal to retract is the last straw for me so I am closing my account and scrambling the password. Congrats on your ham fisted smear job, and good luck with the project. [[User:Lightburst|Lightburst]] ([[User talk:Lightburst#top|talk]]) 00:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)