User:International/arkive3

Talk

Re: from Mrm

Your theories amuse me. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Your allegations do not deserve a response. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have listed evidence of your breaking of WN:E. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Steps

Please do not accuse me of propogation or conspiracies. Please do not harass me as it is against WN:E. Also, your message on my talk page makes me feel harrassed, so please do not leave messages like that for me on my pages. Jason Safoutin 23:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You've been TEA'D!

The prophet of deletion has poured you some tea! —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 01:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

off-site vs. on-site

International, saw your mediation request. I am not sure how useful it is to push for using off-site information on your block to pinpoint wrongdoing of others. The general setup is reasonably clear right now. Trying to hold people responsible for off-site conduct is difficult at best, and more importantly has the problem that it is not clear at all what bearing off-site conduct should have. Others have argued many times that off-site conduct should not have bearing on wikinews and I agree. In this case, the only person that you can blame is the one that implemented the block. He apologized, you accepted, so that discussion is over. I still take issue with statements by MrM that he made on-site, but that is a different story and only peripherally related to your block. I understand that you are upset based on the reasonable suspicion that your block was instigated as a retalitory action along the lines "If I get blocked, then there must have been someone else who provoked me and that needs to get blocked too -- that way at least I have an excuse but otherwise that would mean that I did something wrong." (just like the one on Karen not long ago). But really, the only person that you can blame for the block is the one who implemented it, so I would let it go and focus on other things, for example on your aticles that I usually enjoy or to reestablish the interpretation of blocking policy that people that implement blocks should have clear evidence to support the block as people have varied (understatement) opinions on this. But that's just my thoughts, and I might be wrong... --vonbergm 18:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments regarding your block

While I have been serving my block (self-imposed) I have not been very active in watching en.Wikinews as it's very frustrating to be unable to edit. I was not aware of your block until I read a posting on the WN:ALERT, and I have not reviewed it. If you would like, I will do so. To your specific questions, no I did not talk with MessedRocker about blocking you; I'm unsure what you mean by "propagated". I'm sorry if I can't shed any light about what happened; I'm not even sure when it happened. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 05:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I will be glad to review your block. I should point out that people ask me questions all day long; "If someone does X would it violate policy Y?" or "This image says Z, is that compatible with GFDL?" etc. I may very well have been asked a question which was related to your block, but I did not know it was about you. I will try to have a quick review for you within a few hours. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 17:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

I'm sorry this got delayed; today turned out to be busier than I expected. I am working on it now, however. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 00:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed the block at WN:ALERT. I really appreciate how you accepted MessedRocker's apology. Thank you. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 01:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Updates

Updating leads should only occur to replace old leads with new articles. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• No, according to dates, the other one was published more recently. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I'm no longer conversing with you on any matters. Do not attempt to contact me anymore. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. You have not communicated with other individuals when doing actions, so therefore I will not communicate with you, either. You have reverted based on two people's opinions before, calling it a consensus over one individual - and just now, you revert over two individuals... which, by your standards, would constitute a consensus. That is not acceptable, and until you are able to recognize these issues, I am no longer in contact with you any longer. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Sorry, I was about to put that article I moved from lead, to second.

The Super 14 semi is big news in New Zealand, the final next week could be compaired to the US superbowl :) Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 10:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for taking the time to vote on my RfA. Unfortunately I am not active on any other projects, but I have a good knowledge of Wikinews policies, since I have spent quite some time reading them. Perhaps the only reference I can give you is Yahoo! Answers, where I currently have 702 points. PVJ (Talk) 02:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Relation

Are you related to Neutralizer? You seem to do everything he does...?? Jason Safoutin 22:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. Original humour :/ international 22:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

re to "strange blocks"

oppose here http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Administrators#Brian_New_Zealand Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 05:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

User page

Your user page is delightfully absurd! Well done! (Yes, I mean that sincerely.) —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 22:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Review

COuld you please review http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/12_arrested_in_Canadian_counter-terrorism_operation and tell me if you think it's allright to publish? MyName 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be allright to list them because they are listed on the RCMP's (i assume they are the ones who did the arresting) site if you click the link to their source? MyName 16:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. One more thing, how do I go about Wikifying the article? MyName 16:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for the support. I removed the names to be on the safe side, and I just got done wikifying it. I now think it's ready to publish. MyName 16:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your Message to Me on My Talk Page

Hi. You put a message on my talk page, and I responded there. I'm too lazy to retype my response here, so, if you don't mind, please check back on my talk page. Sobar 16:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

checkuser

International, I did not read carefully through the checkuser discussion, but I had some thoughts about checkuser in general. It seems to me that a lot of the concerns w.r.t. checkuser could be alleviated if there was some transparency. One way to achieve that is that whenever a checkuser is done on a wikinews member, the member must be informed about this afterwards. While this does not do much for IPs, it does offer some protection against random checkuser queries, which is really what I am worried about. At the same time, there should be a count available that just logs the number and dates of checkuser queries launched. If there is a valid reason and good circumstantial evidence to justify a checkuser, this is a valuable tool. If checkuser queries are launched at the slightest suspicion and without keeping the number of checks as small as possible, it destroys all trust. "Assuming good faith" also applies here. --vonbergm 20:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What worries me, (okay maybe it doesn't worry me), but if the community makes this a voting thing for who is or isn't a 'checkuser', then it creates a responsibility to the user granted access to the tool to employ it by being a cop. I don't want "sock cops" running around here right now, but I'm open to your concerns, and kind of like what vonbergm suggests as a way to monitor its use for now. -Edbrown05 07:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Chekuser idea

Heres an idea I had to perhaps resolve the chekuser issue. If someone thinks someone is a sock, they list them on the appropriate page (providing the reasons for their suspicions like they do now). They then have to wait for three other people to agree with them that the chek should be preformed before a chekuser can be preformed. If someone thinks that using chekuser would be inapropriate in the situation, they can oppose the check. one oppose takes away two supports. (so if you have one oppose, you'd need five supports to go through with it). the check users have to wait at least 12 hours before preforming the check so people will see it. Just an idea. [note: I cross posted this on user talk:vonbergm] Bawolff ☺☻ 02:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the existing policies are quite good, i.e. dodn't use checkusers for stupid stuff, don't do check users without reasonable evidence, and don't do cehck users unless its an ongoing problem. More voting just makes things annoying.

Every checkuser which has been done, execpt for Amgines broad one, has had the required evidence. In the Amgine case, there was plenty of evidence that some accounts were Neutralizer, but he mixed in lots of obvious vandals. If you want to make progress, I suggest that you simply examine and discuss this specific case, maybe with people who are more familiar with checkuser, like a Steward or a wikipedia checkuser.

Such a discussion is likely to lead to a clear & logical critisism which Craig will understand, and follow in future. But frankly I don't think any of us know enough about the foundations concerns to make such a logical critisism ourselves. Nyarlathotep 14:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)