User talk:Mrmiscellanious/Admin Code of Conduct

Brilliant Idea Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 01:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Jason Safoutin 01:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

When you're right, you're right. And this is a very right and long overdue idea. Well done,MrM. Neutralizer 02:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

YES. Absolutly great. Good Job. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Conduct code misses the point

Besides all the perhaps previously undefined policy stuff being put forward with this page, it does not address the real problem, that an attitude prejudiced against a news story can use policy to censor it from publication. -Edbrown05 08:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This form of censorship, condenscending from neutral-point-of-view pushing, is almost impossible address in a "get the news out environment", and you are expert at utilizing that for your own purpose.

The idea I am sincerely trying to develop, is a more open policy for allowing for people to report what's on their minds. And I don't mean a weblog. -Edbrown05 08:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If the #4 item on the Conduct page is meant to address anything, it doesn't, etiquette is well travelled. Less well travelled is the conduct by yourself on this old story: Bush's Iraq 'Strategy' seen as public relations exercise, where you fought to have it keep off Wikinews. There are 3 recent examples of very recent stories where you did the same.

How does this code of conduct of yours address examples of stories you have seriously stood in the way of publishing, when in the end, they get published anyway, after wasting the angst of the community? -Edbrown05 08:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean, you can't seriously believe that at a really local level, neighbor Martha wants to publish a neutral story about Sam's dead tree in the next yard. But at a Main Page level, you can't seriously believe that story would make there can you? So let Martha rant on the portal page, that's what they are there for.

NPOV is an ideal, not a requirement. News is the requirement. -Edbrown05 09:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If a story doesn't meet Main Page standards, push it off to the appropriate portal and let those folks deal with it there. -Edbrown05 09:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Ed. NPOV is the requirement. It is pretty much the only requirement we have. Removing it makes us a blog. Removing it destroys the wiki. New news comes second after neutral news. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 18:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm, NPOV is a requirement too, but its a requirement meant to facilitate the one true requirement of delevering the news. The implicit belief of Jimbo & the foundation is "It is not even possible use a wiki to write an encyclepedia, news, etc. without imposing NPOV." If NPOV were an obstical, it would be scrapped, but it has always been viewed as an essential tool.

Anyway, the suggestions here are only about admin powers since this was a responce to a wheel war; and they look pretty darn good. Of course, I'd prefer that all admins followed 1RR with admin powers, but I'm not sure that should be a requirment. AFAIK, only Amgine and MrM have a serious history of violating 1RR with admin powers.

Now its true many many people has issues with MrM's editing style/strategy. But such issues are best addressed by adding a "How to tag/untag an article" section to the Etiquette guide. Eloquence has "threatened" to make such policy changes in the past, but has never done so. So I don't really think wider editing style issues need to be addressed here. Nyarlathotep 13:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Ditto what Ed said above; Neutralizer 15:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the 1RR? Bawolff ☺☻ 23:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due deference to Nyarlathotep's post above, I would agree that Wikinews would descend into a free-for-all if simple opinion and editorial content is passed as news stories. On the other hand, if holding to the policy of neutral-point-of-view is used as an excuse to suppress news, then something ventured (in the form of a news story) is nothing gained. News has value without a 100% NPOV. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has less value without a neutral-point-of-view.

There should be a NPOV distinction between Wikipedia and Wikinews, based on the circumstantial differences between the two different environments. This is the mistake of MrM's policy mongering... Wikinews is not an encylclopedia. -Edbrown05 07:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

News reports are the first efforts to understand history, and are excused from getting it right if, like war, the truth is the first casualty. -Edbrown05 07:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ed, there's a reason why WN:NPOV is a policy here. Too many news sources as it is does exactly what you say. Wikinews is not traditional news; NPOV is the wiki's utmost responsibility. New news comes second. The wiki must have neutral news coming first. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 18:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Its "impossible" to eliminate all blocks for admin actions. For example, its completely standard across foundation projects to block admins for 3RR violations with admin powers. Likewise, you can't really eliminate blocking for "disruption" using admin powers either. So its maybe best to tone down the line about "bad blocks" to simply say "blocks for missuse of admin powers must be supported by the sites wider blocking policy", i.e. 3RR, disruption, etc. Nyarlathotep 12:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

What is "New news"? -Edbrown05 07:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't you want to know what the "new news" is first, and wonder about the neutrality of it secondly? -Edbrown05 10:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If true, that means your little equation MrMiscellanious is wrong.... news comes first. -Edbrown05 10:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

1RR

Bawolff, 1RR for admin powers might mean something like this:

Admins should not revert admin actions, (un)blocking & page (un)protection, twice within one day. If they do revert twice, they must recuse themselves from using admin powers for the next 24 hours.

Or some such thing. Its maybe the the simplest & most effective way to prevent wheel wars. Nyarlathotep 12:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats proabbly a good idea, But I don't believe its policy anywhere. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of dispute

What do you define as a user with whom an admin is in dispute? - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 08:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, a fight only becomes a fight after the second punch, so after the second revert perhaps? That is: Admin A edits, User B reverts, Admin A reverts the revert (or vice versa)? Admittedly, this doesn't address ongoing disputes, and exceptions would need to be made for overt vandalism. Aloha, KeithH (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)