Wolfrider, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! → CGorman (Talk) 16:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User: Rcameronw has been blocked for requesting de-admin vote and alleged "trolling"Edit

Just wanted to let people know that, following yesterday's discussion, user rcameronw has been blocked for 24 hours. It was decided that rcameronw's request for a de-admin vote constituted "site disruption". (see article talk page for more info:[1])

I wouldn't necessarily have blocked rcameronw, but I was aware of the block and did not remove it. As concerns the request for de-adminship: no evidence was presented which evidenced abuse of admin power. It's possible that MrM became embroiled in a heated argument among editors and may have behaved badly (he wasn't the only one), but there is no evidence that he mis-used or abused his administrative powers. Requests that disrupt the wiki -- without any evidence -- should be removed. --Chiacomo (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Although that was the consensus of the vote, so it really didn't seem to do that much harm. Isn't there a policy that says a user must be warned first? --Wolfrider 15:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Chiacomo The concern I have is with the idea that rcameonw's request constituted an act that might "disrupt the wiki". What specifically constitutes disrupting the wiki? rcameonw simply started a vote for the community. Is the actual charge that
rcameonw is a sockpuppet? In that case I'd agree that constituted 'disrupting the wiki', and Wolfrider should probably update the Talk:President_Bush_may_veto_amendment_that_bans_detainee_mistreatment with information about the sockpuppets.
Also, its difficult to follow this because Amgine removed the de-admin request from the administrators page. I can understand MrM not wanting a personal attack sitting out there, but it has been less than 24 hours from when voting started. Sorry maybe I should be saying this on the watercooler instead of your talk page Wolfrider?--Herda05 16:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
No, no. It's fine to use my talk page. I'm just wondering what information you mean about the sockpuppets? --Wolfrider 16:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Without putting words in Amgine's mouth, in my mind the disruption occured because an unfounded request for de-adminship was consuming resources (the valuable time of our editors) and distracting the wiki from its purpose. As to what other acts may be construed as disruption? I suppose that is largely left to the judgement of the administrators who must apply the blocks. As I've said in other places, one of the reasons we have more than one administrator is to prevent unfair/unwarranted blocks. I've often had a block rescinded because another administrator felt I was overzealous (or just plain wrong!). Any administrator is free to unblock somsone who has been blocked (with a few exceptions). As an aside, consensus != vote and shouldn't on a wiki. On some issues, I know it simply must come down to raw numbers, but I simply despise voting on wikis. --Chiacomo (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it was merely a heated issue combined with a lack of knowledge about rules and procedures. Thanks for your input though and acting as moderator, it's much appreciated. --Wolfrider 18:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Wolfrider, sorry for the late reply. I've was traveling yesterday. If you check the history page [2]
Amgine said:
Comment MrMiscellanious has been under attack by a person using sockpuppets and multiple IPs including open proxies for some time. He has been listed this time for "repeatedly reverting a published article" - this article was repeatedly published without consensus and while it was disputed, primarily by accounts believed to be sockpuppets. Sockpuppets are used to create the appearance of consensus where there is none.
I'm willing to trust he had evidence with which to make that statement.--Herda05 03:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe you're asking if I have specific evidence of sockpuppetry in that discussion page. I have circumstantial evidence regarding one of the usernames in that discussion. I have evidence of previous sockpuppetry by User:Neutralizer (for which he was previously banned.) And I have extensive evidence of sockpuppetry/Open proxy abuse as regards the "Cowicide Incident", in which MrMiscellanious was the target. - Amgine/talk 05:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
So, in relation to that particular discussion (ie. the "detainee mistreatment" spat), how many users did you suspect of being sockpuppets or using sockpuppets? I take it that Neutralizer is one suspect, based on previous form (I don't know what "Cowicide" is, but it sounds pretty messy!) - who were the others?

Rcameronw 07:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Shh! Don't say "Cowicide" too loud. PETA will hear you. I am actually also interested in the answer. --Wolfrider 12:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
It would seem it's MrM (MrMiscellanious) that continually incites resentment and wasted time at wikinews. Why not remove MrM once and for all so this wikinews can move forward without so much vitriol? I read the details on the "Cowicide Incident" and looked at the history log. The log shows that it was MrM who incited the vitriol within the "Cowicide Incident" in the first place. This seems to be a pattern with MrM.
Here's where I join in. Cowicide was at first a spammer on the Utah rave article. Later on, he was repeatedly blocked for personal attacks on anyone who would agree with me that his link was spam on the article. Asking repeatedly, I commissioned him to link to a video directly (instead of him intentionally driving traffic to his site), which he refused and started his fit. Acting as childish as he was, he started gathering sockpuppets and some of his "buddies" to personally attack me and all the other editors who tried to say his link was spam. Then, later - he started his rounds of "right-wing" attacks on me. As such, he is probably the best example of why self-centered individuals should not touch a computer. The issue was a spam link - it became spam after I asked him to remove his misleading information on his personal site (such as 'clicking the links above will cost conservatives money!!!!') and link to a video directly on an article, which he refused. And later, he found ways to annoy everyone by blanking user's pages with vulgar messages (more than mine). All items of Cowicide's actions can be viewed by the chart of suspected sockpuppet accounts of Cowicide. --Mrmiscellanious 21:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • After reading that all that I have a new found respect for MrM. --Wolfrider 22:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
It's interesting what MrM leaves out of that log of his. MrM looks like a sparkly little unbiased angel in all of this. Sorry, MrM... I'm not fooled by your incomplete account of events. As seen in multiple other instances with multiple other people, you brought rudeness and vitriol into situations where there was none before. In the history of the Bush Katrina photo op article (you so kindly left out above) it shows where you and another buddy went on and attacked Cowicide without provocation. Interesting that you skipped over that. This is no anomaly, you are consistently rude and use personal attacks against people on wikinews (particularly those who you deem to have a liberal background). It must get tiring after a while? All this hostility? Sheesh... just what happened to you, bro? It's a sad read in the Mr.M history logs. I hope one day you find peace. 07:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read on Wikinews. Anyway, I'm getting tired of the "let's gang up on MrM thing." I offered my talk page in order to discuss something specific, not to get into a flame war. Anything placed on here regarding MrM, or further additions to this section will be promptly removed. --Wolfrider 13:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for suporting my nomination to be an adminEdit

Thanks for supporting me on WN:A. Bawolff ☺☻ ]] 20:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

voting 'anomolies'Edit

Wow, I suspected you liked to write, now I know so. Thanks for the news. -Edbrown05 18:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Re; Student demonstration articleEdit

Since you had previously edited the article/talk; I thought you may wish to get involved on the talk page after seeing what happened to the article within a 5 minute period. [3] [4] [5]. Neutralizer 11:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason, as I see it, for the listEdit

The initial impetus was, I believe, to develop a WN policy for banning problem editors. I did not initially create the page, nor was I consulted in any way about it until after it had been created. User:Neutralizer qualifies as a problem editor, and by ou's actions would easily qualify for a ban on any other wikimedia foundation project. However, I feel that any ban should be accompanied by incontrovertible evidence of persistent and long-term abuse of the site's policies and guidelines, disruptive behaviour, and follow all other site policies.

Realize that this concept for a banning policy is not complete. It is a process, not a single attempt aimed at User:Neutralizer, and so this specific ban may never be brought to the community. It is hardly unique, keeping lists of a user's edits, and does not qualify as baiting - at least according to User:Neutralizer. - Amgine / talk 22:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Also very concerned about actions against NeutralizerEdit

Hi there - just wanted to let you know I totally support your watercooler comments. What do you think we can do to get some kind of independent call on this? Rcameronw 01:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's try to mediate it first and see what the community's opinion on this is. Hopefully we can bring this issue to some kind of close relatively soon. --Wolfrider 02:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

cruise shipsEdit

My mother-in-law, (whoa, back up... my mother-in-law), took a cruise only to be inturupted by hurricane Wilma. She got diverted from Cozumel <--(sp?) and said anyway that it was the ... "she won't say for the internet" .... other than it worked out... No pirates surely.


Thanks for your support with my accreditation request! -- user:zanimum

Informing the communityEdit

A wiki community works by making sure everyone is able to be aware of what is going on. I try to keep people who will be affected by events aware of what is happening, which is why I talk to and message members of the board on a regular basis about what is happening on Wikinews and other Wikimedia Foundation projects I'm involved in. Since I'd been asking Mr. Wales for some time to have a look at Neutralizer's accusations as well as finding a neutral third party to investigate me regarding them (Kim_Bruning eventually began doing so), I left a message for him there as well knowing it would be examined by everyone on Wikinews.

Wiki policy is mostly not written down. The policies and guidelines used to explicitly say this, and explained that policy is built by tradition - what works, what gets done. The reason for policy is to keep the community working smoothly toward its goals - in our case producing news articles of what is known and believed now which are archived as historical documents. Anything which disrupts that motion should be worked around, and the work-around would become policy.

Wikinews is the only WMF project which does not have a banning policy in place. There were changes made to the Blocking policy which allows a de facto banning policy. I would rather have an explicit policy - such as an arbcom, or a justification policy, or a quick poll.

Policy is not set in stone, but in order for it to work it must be enforceable. At the moment no policy is enforceable on Wikinews because admins are not following policies, and the community wants policy to be enforced only on people who are not part of a clique. My personal wish is the community would support the enforcement of existing policy and, rather than second-guessing each admin action, would change the policies through consensus which they find problematic. For example, there should be no way an admin can block someone for more than 30 days (the standard on WP) without a user being banned except for open proxies, but the current policy allows this.

Anyway, I apologize for rambling on your user page. - Amgine 20:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


Damn, I was just trying to vote for Submarine. Will try to fix it now. Neutralizer 14:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it ok now?Edit

Thanks for alert; that was careless of me. Please have a look and see if I fixed it back ok. Neutralizer 14:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking and I will refrain from more edits as I do not want to annoy anyone. Neutralizer 18:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)