Wikinews:Admin action alerts/Archive 6


This page is intended for historical purposes only. Please do not alter it.

Recent incidentEdit

Discussion with regards to the recent incident should not be taking place here. That's not what this page is for. I've left some comments over on the WC:M and if anyone needs to talk more, then do it there.   Tris   11:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Username violationEdit

  • Care to elaborate? --Skenmy talk 10:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Apologies. I was under the impression (although I didn't actually check) that usernames that promoted something were prohibited (and "uservio" is, er, sometimes as a shorthand), based on experiences on other projects. — μ 11:06, June 10 2010 (UTC)

NSW Fire Brigade Crisis RenameEdit

NSW Fire Brigade's Bullying Crisis‎

How About "Independent Investigation shows Extent of Fire Brigade Abuse" or "Abuse Rampant in NSW Fire Brigade"? -- H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia (talk)

When can I expect this to be changed and the article published? -- H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia (talk) BKCW8 (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
You are perfectly capable of renaming the article if it has not been published yet. However, please note that Wikinews uses "downstyle" titles, so your suggested title would become Independent investigation shows extent of NSW Fire Brigade abuse (assuming the proper name is NSW Fire Brigade.) - Amgine | t 13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had this account for more than 4 days, and how would you be able to do that? -- H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia (talk) BKCW8 (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry investigation on SakiEdit

The deletion log indicates that Brian McNeil has undeleted the following, as he claims they were needed for a sockpuppetry investigation:

Given the fact that Saqib (talk · contribs) was blocked indefinitely per a message on the talk page, it is clear that Saki (talk · contribs) has technically engaged in block evasion. However, given the fact that he was allowed to contribute under a different account — Saqib Qayyum (talk · contribs) then S Q (talk · contribs) after a name change — and given his valuable contributions in the form of OR (article), I propose that we pardon Saqib Qayyum Choudhry (the person, not the account) for block evasion. The two-year-old block on the "Saqib" account will be lifted, and the user will be allowed to contribute on the condition that he choose one account to use. The other userpages would redirect to his chosen account. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  • You will clearly be interested in a fast getaway car Benny. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you please present your evidence here? I am quite confused... Benny the mascot (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


  Comment Due to recent "managerial" changes on-wiki Icannot thoroughly investigate this issue. The user was permanently blocked when, after repeatedly lying about jetting around the world (Saudi, HK, ...) appearances in IRC, and CUs always came up within Pakistan. Prior to the debacle this is causing here Xe requested one of the above-listed usernames be renamed on Wikipedia, then created a similar username here, and had that renamed - supposedly for SUL. Now, but out Benny. I have to go do real work, that pays.--Brian McNeil / talk 05:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This *is* the place to bring up these kinds of issues. Although I don't have an opinion on the issue under discussion, I think this is exactly where community discussion should begin. - Amgine | t 05:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no you don't! This is very much a matter that concerns the entire community. Since a change in "management" has resulted in your loss of CU privs, I've requested the help of CUs here.Benny the mascot (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • As if I would not already have raised the issue elsewhere. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
(grrr...edit conflict) So basically you blocked him because he lied about his location? His location is irrelevant to his contributions on wiki! And not to mention that his vandalism block is two-years old. In any case, I do believe that Saki has the right to respond to these comments, so I've unblocked him. Benny the mascot (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Because it is quite relevant to the veracity of the OR supposedly conducted in the far east. CU is required here, WP, Commons,... I am using a 3G connection to give you that detail. Saqib lies, fact. He swore to destroy this project, fact. The Saki account was renamed, without redirect to match with a previous Saqib account on WP - also renamed. It displays a userbox contrary to his observed location when in IRC quite recently. When previously blocked, he pestered me in IRC, claimed he was some sort of uber haxor, yet - despite in 2005 - making some minor contributions to crypto related articles, failed to mask his IP. I will be expecting some people to hand in priv bits when I am likely shown correct. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Per the CU request at WN:CU, and per the CU logs, I have been able to find one single instance of a checkuser being run on any of the above named accounts:
  • 16:59, 15 October 2009, Brian McNeil got IP addresses for S Q (Talk | contribs | block) (suspected sockpuppeteer)
--Skenmy talk 07:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that he generally self-identifies; however, I have generally avoided Saqib so I cannot comment on much of the background. I did block one account (the original?) after a promise that vandalism would continue. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • -chuckles- Well, seeing there's no kickban onwiki, I may as well voice my opinion. Fine, so Saki lied about his location. That, while it certainly may be immature/stupid, doesn't inherently mean it damages Wikinews' credibility. I also know that he vandalised the project about two years ago. But, based on what I've personally seen from him in the recent past, he appears to be trying to be constructive and there was no blatant attempt to compromise project integrity - even if his edits were uninformed. Of course, I'd certainly not be as sympathetic to him if there are other things to take into account I'm not aware of - e.g. it, transpires he is actively socking, if his recent interview is discovered to be false, etc. I'm not necessarily defending his actions, just want proof of recent abuse. After the Matthew Edwards affair - in which we all jumped to conclusions before everything was 110% clear, and were proven wrong - we should have learned to have the firmest possible evidence before coming to important decisions. (Note though, I'm not opposed to a CU on the account; in fact, given that things certainly are suspicious, it's probably a good thing to do.) Tempodivalse [talk] 13:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to assume good intentions here and agree with Benny and Tempo. Whatever his past may be, I can't see anything (barring major disaster like what Tempo mentioned) that he's recently done that warrants a block/ban, what have you. If he's disrupting the project again somehow, fine, block him. One strike too many. If he's making constructive contributions, however, why the hell would we block him? Because he's sinned in the past, and stopped? That's jumping to assume the worst; hasn't anything been learned here after Matthewedwards? C628 (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, but I can't see evidence that he interviewed the Japanese woman. There's a "transcript", but I don't see the audio (see Turtlestack' msg on saki's talk; he never replied). Sry but I cant AGI there. Diego Grez return fire 14:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC) (Opera Mini)

I think someone emailed Mikemoral the audio files for that article. He's not been around recently I'll go ping him on his talk page. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
More WN:CU requests have been fulfilled. As far as I can tell, there is no evidence of recent abuse. It's not as if Saki was using multiple accounts to give the illusion of consensus, but I suppose a bit more investigating wouldn't hurt. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
McNeil I don't know what you want but it seems that I'm irritating you that's why I thought much better to leave WN from now. Good bye and thanks to those who support.--Saki (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Here's the deal: I have blocked Saki and requested xe seek unblock at the main account. I propose this: If all is fine, we let him back under a very close watch. If, however, the interview is shown to be forged, then we don't. Simple enough. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    I'm not sure the block was completely necessary since it appears the user has reformed in the two years since and now trying to help. But on the other hand, technically it was block evasion after all, so I can't dispute your move. But since the user indicated intention to retire, I'm uncertain of whether we're going to get a reply. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I say we let him back on a single account of his choice, and keep him under a very close watch. I think he seriously wants to reform, but I wouldn't be opposed to a probation period during which he can be re-blocked if he puts a toe out of line. One of the things that drew me to this community was how it seemed so forgiving, but the attitude seems to have hardened somewhat of late. Give the guy a chance. Perhaps ban him from OR for a few months if you think that's an issue, but he seems to have a sincere wish to contribute. Δενδοδγε τ\c 20:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    I agree, a few editing restrictions should be put in place if he is unblocked. --Diego Grez return fire 20:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


  • Say what?
You think this guy hasn't been popping up like a week-old corpse floating to the top of a river every now-and-then? Shame on you, but I have this bridge to sell...
Has anyone else looked into this in sufficient detail to challenge my request that the entire Pakistani IP range(s) be CU'd for socks? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It all hinges on this interview. If shown false he's away. If proven accurate we would appear forced to just sit hard on him with restrictions and watch for more trouble. I have little hope of reform. I believe he will remain the cunt he always was. To me, once somebody has blown trust regaining it is almost impossible. However, I openly admit I would struggle to object if the interview checks out. That is critical. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't really matter, if he's gone already...unless people want to block everyone they think might have some connection to Saki, just so's they can feel like they won again. C628 (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WN:CU, the following are suspected socks:

I'll start taking a look at their contribs. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

As Cspurrier noted on WN:CU, none of the above accounts have made any contributions here. However, Kamranidris, Qasim Sidd 1987, Nomanahmed1111, and Teerus all have contributions on enwp. Teerus also has one contrib on commons. A cursory review of those contributions reveal no abuse on enwp or commons, and I see no reason to believe that Saki has been disruptive here on Wikinews. In fact, Saki has been quite cordial throughout this entire ordeal, and I can only hope that he returns sometime soon. Let's unblock one of his accounts so that he may edit freely. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Per RFCU, I have emailed CC asking them to confirm the authenticity of the interview, and any relationship with the domain the audio was posted from. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Saqib/Saki updateEdit

  • I have email back from CC. They are looking into this. As it seems from where I am sitting, they may be deeply unhappy about that domain - even if the interview really took place.
There are serious issues here, and I do not consider that people are taking that into account before assuming good intentions and letting this stand. A transcript is exactly that, a verbatim copy of what was said. I doubt this is the case. There is evidence Xe is socking, possibly here, possibly elsewhere, possibly building socks. Should Xe genuinely carried out the interview, there are dozens of thing to sort out - especially considering my suspicion that copyright infringement is an ongoing problem.
I will get a resolution to this via CC. I am happy to see the user unbanned if the interview genuinely took place. But, he must settle on a single account. He must get someone in CC to drill it into him how important being beyond reproach with regards to copyright is. He must clearly understand how he may, and may not represent himself when approaching potential interview subjects. The list goes on, and on, ... For someone with very poor grammatical skills and the likelyhood he will impose an undue burden on reviewers. For a start, again assuming he did do the interview, CC will have a few choice words about that domain, and Xyr use of WMA. Not the most productive use of anyone's time, but there you go. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This investigation has been dragging on for four days, and I see no reason to believe that Saki has heavily abused this project, nor do I see any reason to believe that Saki is not wanted here. I've therefore unblocked him. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Good move after all, however, he must stick with that account, any other account created by him, not needed, and he should be blocked without further discussion. Editing restrictions? --Diego Grez return fire 01:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm working on those right now. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Then I think he should be reblocked until he accepts the restrictions we are going to impose. --Diego Grez return fire 01:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I decided to impose only a "no-socking" order, which really is a no-brainer. Do we really need to impose editing restrictions? IMO they don't exactly "fit the crime" he committed. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, I think it's okay for now. --Diego Grez return fire 01:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I second the unblock. C628 (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Further updateEdit

Creative Commons have indicated they were generally aware of the interview being set up. Benny, I would like to politely suggest you review similar cases on Wikipedia for how serial sockpuppeteers are dealt with. Xe was found to have numerous sock accounts created within the timeframe that CU data is retained for. If any account is to be unblocked, it should be the Saqib original. All others blocked, and pages full-protected to stop the quiet 'dissappearing' of evidence. If Xe can stick to a single account for a reasonable time, then it would seem reasonable to delete evidence of past transgressions.

Editing restrictions? Absolutely. Xe really has to prove he is reformed. It certainly does not look that way from where I am sitting, and, gramatically, I find his contributions beyond economic repair. - Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talkmain talk 14:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with unblocking right now. The socks are a little disconcerting, yes, but as long as they're blocked, and Saki's limited to one account (and why shouldn't it be Saki, rather than Saqib?), with it made explicitly clear that if he steps out of line once he's blocked agiain, with it nearly certain he won't be unblocked, what have we to lose? I realize his English may not be brilliant, but I for one can understand it, and that's what reviewers are for anyway, right? C628 (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Now that we know the interview wasn't a hoax, and no evidence of sock abuse has been provided, then I don't see any remaining reason to keep Saki blocked as long as there's a promise to edit from only one account; I support Benny's move.
I'm not sure why we need to force him to use the Saqib account - yeah, I know it's technically the "master sock" account, but what practical difference does it make which one he uses? We're not The Other Place™. Besides, Saki says he lost the password for the old account ... Tempodivalse [talk] 16:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, if you think it would be more reasonable for Xe to use the Saki (talk · contribs), so be it. I will be continuing to try and establish precisely how this interview was arranged and carried out without a thought to contacting anyone on-project. Then, when challenged to provide evidence that it took place, this was by means of a website seemingly set up to make it appear santioned by CC.
C628 is quite correct though, where material is suitably comprendible reviewers should attempt to resolve such. However, in Saqib's case the first check I would carry out is to check the initial version as it is highly likely to be a substantial copyright violation itself. Project policy demands rewrites on sub-pages and the initial copyvio deleted.
In all honesty, I have no intention of looking at the audio. But, has anyone done so yet? Or to educate Xe about free formats? Or uploading material locally or to Commons?
Benny, Tempo, C628, you've adopted him. I will make sure that if he does break probationary terms sanctions are imposed. Unfortunately, based on past experience I would assert that is going to mean significantly higher use of the Checkuser facility. One account. No exceptions. No conveniently creating on other projects, or in other countries. I know Saqib's techniques, amateurish though they are. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talkmain talk 17:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I have now received email from Chiaki. The interview took place, but she was subsequently contacted by Saqib, claiming to have lost the data. She declined to be re-interviewed as it had been an 'uncomfortable' experience. I also downloaded the supposed audio, and despite having numerous non-free codec packs was unable to play it. Further updates will follow. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talkmain talk 11:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I was able to play on Windows, but Audacity could neither load nor convert the file. Have you tried a conversion with —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews' counter-productive blocking policyEdit

The extended posting on sockpuppetry investigation of June, 2010 shows how wrong WikiNews' blocking policy is in that it enables and appeases violators.

The policy states that only after "efforts to educate...and warnings" may an admin block a violator. [Note that efforts & warnings are plural.]

What sort of educational efforts does the policy imagine will be effective on those who "excessively and consistently break site policy"? Those users are vandals who delight in and mock the attention given them in the form of educational efforts and warnings. The only education they need is what they already have: site policy.

Warn them that they've violated policy xyz, and if they re-offend block or ban them.

You're trying to attract good users all the while you're inviting vandals & other disrupters w/ this counter-productive policy.

Then there is an admin here who uses sexist vulgarisms to describe violators as occured the above-noted investigation. This is a violation of the Pilars, and is also quite enabling to violators.

I recently contributed a few edits here and also @ Wikipedia where some of my efforts were repeatedly, wrongfully undone by a user who had a long record of being educated, warned, blocked and banned. I'm incredulous that Wikipedia let this person back yet again to disrupt. (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that we are separate projects from Wikipedia, anything that happened at Wikipedia you'll have to take up with the wikipedia folks - we have no control with what they do. As for Wikinews, as far as I can tell the only time you were reverted here was [1] (arguably that shouldn't have been reverted, but modified so it just had the US$ value, and not the extra stuff about google, but I can understand why it would be reverted. In any case, the vandals aren't running wild reverting you). As for our blocking policy being to weak - ours is a bit flexible depending on the opinion of those involved. Rest assured Saki will be watched closely. Bawolff 18:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is clear to me that you haven't read WN:BP: "Admins can block users or IP addresses who... [a]re trouble-makers who are not contributing to our goals." wikt:cunt as-used (Noun #2) is not sexist; it is actually gender-neutral. Wikinews has no policy against strong language; how it is used is much more important than the actual words selected. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    That's as specious an argument ever I've heard, BRS. Calling someone a cunt is a sexist pejorative, in the UK/Ireland because the subject is usually male. Wiktionary may be too squeamish, but it's a fuck; in the Scandinavian/Germanic roots it's an ass-rape. I have no problem with its use, but trying to say it's not an extremely rude term is a lie. - Amgine | t 11:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
    I didn't say it wasn't extremely rude. I would use it happily be it to a male or to a female. Usually is the word they use; and in my experience this is only the case because normally only men manage to behave badly enough to attract such strong language. As the local Word God, you are about the only person I might trust to get it right if you were to drag out some other reason to make it a sexist term; at present, none has been raised. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Runaway bot?Edit

I hope this is the right place to report this. I am not entirely sure, my Serbian is not excellent. But it looks like there is a runaway bot on Serbian Wikinews. Since June 15 2009 350k edits, 1 per 2 seconds, I checked one page history it seemingly updates a temperature every hour, and windspeed on other page, etc. This cannot be as intended, will break our project in due time. Erik Zachte (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, we actually don't have any control over what the Serbian Wikinews does - they are entirely different wikis and admins here have no power over there. The bot's edits, from what I can tell, don't seem to be harmful - it appears to be updating a weather map of some sort (which is not unusual, in fact, en.wikinews has a similar bot). Tempodivalse [talk] 16:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Erik Zachte (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The sr wikinews is mostly bot run :s. User:Millosh is the bot maintainer, and generally available (and speaks english), he'd be the one to ask about it. Bawolff 17:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
We have a weather map? Where? I know that the French, Spanish and German WNs have weather and Stock exchange pages, and I've been looking all over en-wn for similar but haven't found either. Matthewedwards (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Portal:Weather and Portal:Economy and business have weather maps and stock tickers respectively (Except the stock ticker i just noticed is very very broken...). They used to be on the main page, but it became too clutered. Cheers. Bawolff 17:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • 2 updates/sec? I'd block until Millosh can fix. Here? I suspect the stock ticker went south after one of the collators (WSJ IIRC) menaced us. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talkmain talk 00:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The here stuff is unrelated - I protected the {{Crude Oil Prices}} until Zach fixes bot. Bawolff 01:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


I have requested my admin rights here be removed for a number of reasons. That I am no longer active here is the main reason but I'm also disgusted by what seems to have gone on with User:Matthewedwards and even more surprised that one of those involved in the incident didn't lose his admin/crat rights as a result. Since it seems the community doesn't seem to value civil behaviour when it comes to admins, I don't think I want to be so strongly associated with this project by being an adminstrator. Whilst I have never claimed to be a perfect admin, and I've acknowledged a number of mistakes during my time here, I've always strongly believed that admins should set an example of the behaviour expected by the rest of the community. The User:Matthewedwards incident is just the latest indication that some admins here don't share that belief and that is very disappointing.

As I've said, I've made a number of mistakes as an admin. The reason I post here is because of my final mistake, that being to have my admin rights removed before removing the protection of User:Adambro. That now prevents me from updating my user page to reflect the fact that I am no longer an admin here. Since I am well aware that there are still a number of good admins here, I would ask that someone unprotects my userpage. Thanks. Adambro (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

  DoneGopher65talk 13:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, yet another user lost because of all this. Sorry to see you go, Adambro. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammar changes in archived articles?Edit

See Talk:7.2 quake rattles lower Colorado River area in Mexico#Correction. Does the DynamicPageList at the top of this page substitute for manually posting a grammar change request here? --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done Good enough for me. I deleted the sentence from Wikinews:Archive conventions#Post-archival edits --InfantGorilla (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Smith, AKA BKCW8 (talk · contribs)?Edit

I believe that the following are reasonable grounds to assume that this user has concealed their identity because it brings into question their contributions on this project.

  1. [2], note signature.
  2. [3], note photo caption.
  3. [4], not the various reasons behind the article in question being labelled as a copyvio, and now being disputed by a subject.

Would others please review my findings here? I assume BKCW8 will be commenting on this strong suspicion, due to its significance. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Add another part of dealing with this horror story.
  1. [5]

--Brian McNeil / talk 22:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they are both called Bradley is hardly grounds for "strong suspicion", it's a common enough name! Are you and Brian New Zealand sockpuppets? ;-) Anyhow I went hunting all the same and found a few clicks away from BKCW8's userpage. Try and ignore all the general insanity, and the rant about Wikinews: on the right is a link to "Bradley Clarke-Wood's profile". Not Bradley Smith. the wub "?!" 23:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bradley Smith climate change activist shows up on Facebook. He seems to be older and more literate than King Bradley, so it seems to me that they merely share a first name.

If the climate change activist was writing a hatchet job on Gillard, he would have done a better job (and been harder to catch.)

King Bradley made a bit of a hash of his most ambitious article (to put it mildly, imo) but it takes a reviewer with low standards to let that stuff through. Sadly on that day we had one.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See also InfantGorilla's post at Comments:Australian Prime Minister accused of poor leadership on climate change, where he has tracked down the quote to one of the sources the article originally had. So that's not really our fault, but an upstream bug. As for the copyvio, it was a too close paraphrase, they're all too common - especially for newbies. IG did a damn good job catching it. So in summary: a cock-up, not a conspiracy. the wub "?!" 00:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Yep, I'd certainly say IG makes sense. Raised here for less-tired eyes, I did not follow the links you'd caught above tw, but they're even less encouraging about BKCW8. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, in the last 3-4 months I've spoken to, literally, thousands of people. I work in an office with over 150 other people. No Bradleys. So, where is the name common? --Brian McNeil / talk 00:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Have I missed anything in the cleanup? I don't see any hope of salvaging the article now, we're going to have to draft a formal withdrawal for that page name. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  1. I don't see any naked IP addresses in // or // I don't think there is anywhere else to look.
  2. Yes go ahead and delete the article (its PROD has fallen due.) Please move/tag/archive the talk and cleaned comments page for future reference.
(BTW Bradley is quite a common name in several English-speaking countries in my experience, but I don't follow baby name statistics, so yours and my experiences are purely subjective.)
--InfantGorilla (talk) 05:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well not an extremely common name, it is by no means unusual (At least in Canada). Bawolff 05:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Image protectionEdit

Can an admin protect all the images used in {{social bookmarks}}? I uploaded an exact copy of File:Facebook.png, so I'm thinking changing the upload to admin-only is the most important part. fetch·comms 22:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

  Done --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use text?Edit

I have posted a question at Talk:Deadly flooding in Pakistan kills hundreds#Ethics?. It relates to a quotation posted by Saki (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who is on probation, (formerly Saqib (talkcontribs (logs)block (block log)) .) --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom motionEdit

Note: Out of 5 active arbitrators, 4 rejected a full case, and supported voting on a motion. One abstained.


Proposed: The Arbitration Committee recognizes the outcome of consensus after a deletion discussion (July 2010), where the community determined to delete the page Wikinews:Userbox Policy. The community may propose, discuss, and adopt a new Wikinews:Userbox Policy if members wish this. However, there is no need to modify the existing prior case from 2006, Wikinews:Requests for arbitration/Brian New Zealand vs. Amgine. The determination at Wikinews:Requests_for_arbitration/Brian_New_Zealand_vs._Amgine#Userbox_whitelist deferred development of policy to the community, and with the community it still remains. The ArbCom notes that it is still the final decision-maker, but reminds that strong community consensus may be presented as evidence to encourage overruling an unpopular decision.

3 voted in support, 1 opposed, 1 recused/abstain due to conflict-of-interest. -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Block to monitorEdit

Please review this 24 hour block. Only 2 (deleted) edits here, but appears to be a pattern of cross-wiki spam

--InfantGorilla (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Ask for a steward to block and delete all the pages. fetch·comms 20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the page is meta:SR. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Request posted. --InfantGorilla (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No response yet at meta:Steward_requests/Global. But, I reviewed Wikinews's recent block log, as well as the global user manager on Meta [6]. Normal (undocumented) practice seems to be to indef block blatant spammers like this, so I extended the local block to indefinite. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for rights removalEdit

Would the first admin who sees this please remove my reviewer rights and close my reconfirmation request (which likely wasn't going to pass anyway). I am retiring from this project. Thanks to all who helped make my experience here a, for the most part, pleasant one. Respectfully, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

  Done :( —Mikemoral♪♫ 21:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious trollingEdit

Please monitor (talkcontribs (logs)block (block log)). One warning, followed by an attempt at civil conversation on the IP talk page. --InfantGorilla (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Temporarily IP blocked. No further activity. Keep an eye out, please. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad page creation vandalEdit has created several bad pages, blanked its talk page yet again after the protection on it expired, vandalized my talk page/user space after I've undone/marked pages by it for deletion, and tried to remove a notice I've placed on an admin's talk page. I got a steward to block it temporarily but a longer block is necessary and cleanup is needed. Adrignola (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Blocked, pages deleted - I will be CUing around this IP address --Skenmy talk 13:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Block the ricktrollerEdit get rid of the Wikinews page vandal, who has edited from and, it is necessary to block the IP range Thank you. --Diego Grez return fire 00:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblocked for 24 hours. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Username policyEdit

User:EditorInCheif per WN:U. - Amgine | t 13:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Brian McNeil appears to have blocked the user indefinitely. red-thunder. 13:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ancinvestment (talk · contribs)Edit

I just smell the spam before they've even opened the tin. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't seemed to have any contribs, so I don't recommend a block. However, we should definitely monitor this user for spam. red-thunder. 02:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
<is actually wondering if anyone would be interested in the African National Congress as an investment medium> Wanna buy a politician? - Amgine | t 00:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Not impossible it could be an allusion to w:Chancellor House (company). --Pi zero (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Earthquake SpamEdit

The page {spam here} has been deleted without any explanation why it was considered by ShakataGaNai to be not news (?!). Is he so busy or, simply, despises to talk to the people like us? Shustov (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The explanation... was "Not News", what part of those 2 words did you fail to understand? The "Not"? Or the "News"? In short: We don't want your spamy kind here. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 23:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Does it mean that even you and Diego (to say nothing about his cats) had been aware of existence of Earthquake Performance Evaluation Tool Online long ago before I posted it on Wikinews? Shustov (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Gave user a stern warning on talkpage. If any other user sees Shustov causing any more disruption, please notify me or another admin and he will be blocked. red-thunder. 23:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's do an intelligent discussion instead of threatening, please. I really do not understand why some professional news may be a news for me, an expert, but it is not a news for a layman in that area? Shustov (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, your story was not written in a news format, and seemed like spam to the user who deleted it. If you can find coverage of the software in reliable secondary sources, please feel free to write the article while conforming to the manual of style. red-thunder. 00:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
You want intelligent? OK, I'll do intelligent, Shustov. Firstly, you have a massive Conflict of Interest in that document, since your userpage claims you also created the software. Secondly, The piece you posted was not news, it's destined for Wikipedia more than anything else. It wasn't a news story, it was effectively, an advert for something you created. Take it elsewhere, please. BarkingFish (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • How often, and over what period of time, do you intend to keep trying to spam this wiki about this "toy"? I see numerous hidden revisions going back months, warnings on your talk page about this being disruption. And, when I view the "supposed" news article it a) Is not news b) does not comply with a single project policy for publication, and c) Is pathetically written. This is not Wikipedia, your news is more stale than the unwashed sock currently trying to strangle me, and you're being a dick. Contribute constructively – after you have made some effort to familiarise yourself with the project norms. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, Brian McNeil for my bringing you so much of negative feelings. I do appreciate your writing style. Wikinews is, no doubt, proud of its people like you. On your part, you shouldn't worry any more about my "stale news" (as you said): while we have been arguing {SPAM LINK} here, it was, according to the Advanced Web Statistics, visited 1364 times by 101 unique visitor from 25 countries. Wash your socks safely! Shustov (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Shustov, Wikinews is for news, not for encyclopedic articles, that your article looked like. Diego Grez return fire 02:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

If I may offer you some advice, Shustov, there are a few steps you should take before writing a Wikinews article.
  1. Ensure that you do not have a conflict of interest
  2. Ensure that the article is newsworthy
  3. Write the article neutrally, using good English and in accordance with Wikinews policies and guidelines
From your writing style in the comments you have made above, I presume that English is not your first language (don't be offended if that is not the case, I'm just conjecturing); if this is the case, you are not alone in the community, and there are a number of users who, I'm sure, would be willing to help you to write an article that is in accordance with Wikinews standards. However, I doubt very much that your "Earthquake Performance Evaluation Tool Online" will be published on this website in any form. Please do not be discouraged—just find something else to write about and try again. I suggest you familiarise yourself with our policies first, though. I have linked to some of them above to make it easier for you. Δενδοδγε τ\c 11:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Δενδοδγε. I agree with all you said. Best wishes! Shustov (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Dendodge is correct, but I can only assume yours is a 'single purpose account'. Your correct avenue for this project is a press release - but it is not new. You have fundamentally failed to understand Wikinews, a common problem with people who equate wiki with free webhosting, which it is not. The small Wikinews community does not have time to aid in your education, you were wasting their time, and bringing the issue here is disruption. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Dendodge or Δενδοδγε is really correct while you, Brian McNeil, are not: just compare your responses and his one. Shustov (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Implying the two comments are mutually exclusive. Stop trolling, stop spaming, stop disrupting this project. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Archive this. User lacks clue, proceed with ever-increasing blocks if spams his 'tool' again. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Nah. If the user goes on any more in this vein I will indef. Enough is enough. I'd consider indef after that many warnings on The Other Place, with its awful softly-softly approach, so this user is certainly "[a] trouble-make[r] who [is] not contributing to our goals." Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate usernameEdit


Please block Eatdapoopooman (talk · contribs). Thanks. --Diego Grez return fire 00:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

  Done by Red Thunder. --Diego Grez return fire 01:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Greg L, Tony1Edit

Greg L (talk · contribs) Tony1 (talk · contribs)

I do not believe there is any justification for the blocks of either these two users, while there is a clear conflict of interest (per BP) for Brian McNeil to have done so. I request an immediate unblock. - Amgine | t 18:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, Greg L requested to be unblocked on the basis of not being an open proxy. I denied that request because he wasn't blocked for that. That should not be taken as an opinion on if the block was justified or not. With that said, I am leaning towards the user blocked for disruption/troll/not contributing to wikinews goals is justified, with the side note that the block should have been made by an uninvolved party. Bawolff 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Specifically I think there is justification under "Are trouble-makers who are not contributing to our goals." to quote WN:BP. Bawolff 18:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Just as a quick addedendum to that, after discussing with an uninvolved third party who made me look at this more rationally, I no longer think that a block is an appropriate course of action at this time. Bawolff 11:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I have unblocked. If you feel the users should be reblocked, please discuss it here first before this becomes any more convoluted. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I would request those blocks be reinstated, per my comment below. Yes, an uninvolved party would have been a better choice, but in this small a community? --Brian McNeil / talk 18:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I was beginning to despair, but sanity has prevailed (by removing the blocks). It might be time to start looking at the process of handing out blocks at WN.  HWV258.  20:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • You just arrived here from nowhere and yet want to change our processes. Nice. --Diego Grez return fire 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't say that I wanted to change them, however when an involved editor applies blocks, it would be a good idea for other admins to re-evaluating the process. Don't you agree?  HWV258.  20:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The block was not out of place. That Tony1 guy arrived from nowhere here just like you did. I agree with McNeil: Go write articles, instead of enforcing your ideas. Shall I remind Tony1's and company block on French Wikipedia? Diego Grez return fire 21:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Whether the block was "out of place" is not the issue. Do you agree that an involved editor should not be the one to apply the block?  HWV258.  21:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • In terms of the process, I'd suggest that a good system is one that "fails well." Here, we had a failure (Brian viewed it as appropriate to block, others disagreed) that was fairly quickly resolved. Obviously, the wider dispute is ongoing but the blocks were lifted shortly after being applied. Therefore, I'd suggest the process itself is just fine, at least as far as blocks are concerned. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The blocks were completely inappropriate. On topic debate is not disruption. If a user wishes to solely contribute to one area of the site they are welcome to do so. As long as their work is supporting our mission, they should be welcomed. Ignoring the issue of blocking reason, Brian should not have been the person preforming the block. We may be a small community, but you can always find uninvolved admins. This was not an emergency situation, a few hours to allow for an uninvolved admin to to see a post here would not have hurt anything. --Cspurrier (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Craig, with due respect, I completely disagree. We're now up to five or more of our very small contributor base engaged in Usenet-style debate with meatpuppets. That 'in unison' they sieze upon a typo made from a mobile device indicates off-wiki collusion with a view to bait myself, test the limits of my patience - and that of other contributors. My competence has been questioned, in that I supposedly could not contribute content, manage policy, and make effective decisions as to what is best for this project. I assert that I have a long track record of doing so. Journalism is, as Walter Cronkite's PA told me, a craft. It is best learned through doing the job, serving "an apprenticeship", and setting policy and guidelines from a position of experience. That is unmistakably not what is going on here. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I can definitely understand where you are coming from, the debate on the talk page has been rapidly deteriorating into a mess. While I do not feel they are appropriate, blocks could potentially de-escalate the situation and let people get back to work. I also do agree that policy pages are very poor choices for first contributions. At the same time we must remember that these are people who want to contribute to our project. We need to be welcoming to everyone who wishes to help us. There is no urgency to the edits to the style guide, we can afford to debate it for months if the end result is a better document (as long as we remain calm and polite). If the debate is too heated or whatever just ignore it for a few days and let things cool down. This is not an article, we have all the time in world to make it perfect. --Cspurrier (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The ongoing SG talk discussion is still laced with smug, arrogant, condescention. To call Wikipedia "the big city" is to insinuate we are country bumpkins, or hicks. No matter how flowery the language, I recognise an insult when I see one. I will, as done there, request the SG be fully protected and the two newcomers appropriately advised that "they're not in Kansas anymore". --Brian McNeil / talk 01:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I can see how that could be considered an insult, but I do not think it was meant to be one. Rather it feels like an attempt at humour in a tense situation (the part of the US I live in considers small towns the ideal and describing yourself as coming from the big city would probably be seen more as self-deprecating humour then as a veiled insult). Likewise, I know you are trying to be funny, but calling them "Big Brother Wikipedia" and “the other place” is just as problematic. We need to get past an us vs them approach to Wikipedia and remember that while we have differences we are all part of a bigger wiki community. --Cspurrier (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The Other Place is how the UK Houses of Commons and Lords refer to each other, as well as various other systems similar to it (such as the Australian one). It is neither respectful nor disrespectful, it is simply a turn of phrase. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

STATEMENT BY TONY1. This all happened while I was asleep, and has evolved in the meantime from an unnecessary drama into a major incident.

  • First, the process: I see no record of a block on my talk page, nor an unblock; this is the minimum that would be required in a properly run WMF project. I should not have find out from comments on another page that I had been blocked and unblocked. More importantly, Brian McNeil was an "involved" functionary (in fact, central to the matter), and as someone pointed out above, the minimum requirement was that he find another admin to consider the situation and do the blocking, if that had been appropriate. This is basic.
  • Second, the reasons given for the block appear to be Mr McNeil's very own take on the situation, which I am unconvinced are not entirely self-serving. Let's take a look at the reasons: "Wikilawyering, meatpuppetry, failure to contribute constructively to project goals, general disruption." "Wikilawyering" is a nefarious concept that can be moulded around any attempt to appeal to the policies and rules of a project. I can only imagine it is his response to my point that he has seriously breached the civility codes that appear on a number of WN policy and style-guide pages. Please take a look at what he has said to and about me on the SG talk page, on my user talk page, and probably elsewhere. I believe my responses have not been uncivil. This is why the uninvolved rule exists.

    "Meatpuppery" might hold a little water if I had asked anyone to arrive here to support me: I did not, and I don't think it was all that wise of several other users from en.WP to do so. But I have, of course, talked about the extraordinary goings-on here to other Foundation users, and will continue to do so. The arrival of those editors (who might be inclined to stay and help WN if they were treated with friendliness) is probably due to their amazement at the goings-on, and their feeling that it was time to intervene.

    "general disruption": here, again, like wikilawyering, "general disruption" seems to be turned on its head. All I did was to propose improved versions of the first couple of paragraphs of the SG—not substantive changes in any rules, but the cleaning up of a poorly written, poorly organised SG (some established WN users have dared to confirm that it needs a good copy-edit, but I'm sure they wouldn't push it). The disruption, and the waste of precious editor time, has been entirely due to the "how dare you" campaign by Mr McNeil and his colleague, Amgine; this has verged on a smear campaign.

    "failure to contribute constructively to project goals": but does Mr McNeil alone define the project goals, in his own terms? Are they becoming blurred with his stated contempt for the English WP (well-documented) and even for American English (also readily in evidence). Mr McNeil has laid down that no new editor will contribute to anything before they gain their "stripes", his way. That means "keep off style guides" until we say you're allowed in. If WN takes this attitude, the Foundation needs to be made aware of it. There is an unseemly prying into new users' privacy in the form of hectoring about whether they have journalistic experience and whether they intend to contribute to mainspace. This tactic has been used three times in the past few days. (I do have such experience, but that is utterly irrelevant to the talk pages I choose to contribute to first.)

    But that seems to be a ruse, anyway: Mr McNeil and Amgine have retained an iron grip on the SG for some time even when it comes to the input of more established WN editors. Pi zero's edit a few months ago (correct, in my view) was immediately reverted by Amgine. Another WN editor's attempt to harmonise the mixed spelling on the SG was also promptly reverted. It seems that no one bothers to enter discussion after such experiences. Ownership is thus achieved relatively easily, whether by prompt reversion, bullying, or through the compliance of others who have gained power here and/or cower at the thought of going against the culture: I see above that Cspurrier has bravely called it as s/he sees it, but that others, such as Diego Grez, and to a lesser extent, Bawolff, are perfectly willing to support a continuation of a negative, insular, xenophobic culture.

    Most reasonable people—and clearly some within NW—would regard Mr McNeil's attitudes and behaviour as reprehensible in a casual editor; but he is a bureaucrat and ex-arbitrator, and thus is invested with considerable power and influence, and a responsibility to uphold the basic rules of WN and to set a behavioural example. Instead, he is breaching those rules (rudeness, belittling, abuse, plus the "uninvolved" rule), and encouraging a culture of "ownership". He is inventing his very own rules about who is allowed to contribute to what, when, and enforcing them with the powers he has gained for himself (then "I'll give you the time of day"). This is very damaging for the project, and I suggest the culture that has grown around such attitudes and behaviour is a key reason you are so short of editors.

    If WN has any integrity, it will join me in calling for Mr McNeil to resign his position as bureaucrat and admin—or at the very least to surrender his tools for a while, to cool off and reflect on the damage that he has wrought here.

    At the heart of it, please remember that it is the Foundation that owns WN, not Mr McNeil, Amgine, or any other editor. The Foundation owns the server space, the technical maintenance, and most of all its brand name. WN is in a bad state at the moment, and the Foundation needs to be made aware that its own name is being dragged down by both the product, hostility towards en.WP, and a closed-shop, at least partly out-of-control culture. It is a textbook case of what has apparently occurred on a number of smaller WMF projects in other languages, where the wrong type of people gain control in a tiny community. I ask you: do you want to improve WN? If so, you will need to forge a more open, accountable culture, and encourage more wiki-editors onboard. Tony1 (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Greg L (talk · contribs) and Tony1 (talk · contribs)Edit

I have given these two 48 hr blocks for "Wikilawyering, meatpuppetry, failure to contribute constructively to project goals, general disruption."

Given the volume of verbiage on the talk page of the SG in the last 2-3 days likely exceeds real output, I believe this is fully justified. HWV258 (talk · contribs) seems to have taken my point about disruption to heart, whereas those blocked chose to expand their confrontation to that venue. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Once again, excess verbiage prevents me from responding in the appropriate place. I am open to recall, but decline Tony1's invitation to resign - just as I have from those with more gravitas. Notice of a block on a user's talk page is a courtesy, not mandatory; all critical points raised regarding Tony and Greg's entrance to this project have been sidestepped. At this time I decline to escalate this to dispute resolution, pending ShakataGaNai completing xyr review of the circumstances leading to my issuing blocks, and subsequent 'explosion dramaticus'. I do note Craig, a Steward, concedes blocks may have been an appropriate utility to force de-escalation; key to whether I could, or could not, do so is the nuanced difference between "should not" and "must not". I sought to highlight the issue of said blocks here as quickly as possible, I considered that the most reasonable approach in seeking community review of what was obviously needed action. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
So Craig "concedes"—an interesting way of putting it; but perhaps he was thinking more of blocking you, since the incivility was coming from you, not me. It is not possible as a reasonable person to construe any of my posts on this matter as disruptive or escalation, unless the starting point is the rules by which—in only a slight exaggeration—it seems that Brian owns and runs this project. I will certainly speak plainly when attacked, but I have remained civil at all times. Please examine the diffs. I came as a friend to WN, wanting to do good in a potentially exciting project, not to be treated as a parachute dropping in from a despised en.WP. In the end, you can abuse me all you like—block me, ban me, whatever; it wouldn't hurt me, since I have ample to do elsewhere as an editor and journalist, and am held in very high regard (I rarely say such a thing, but here it seems necessary). It would only damage WN, not least of which because it would be circumstantial proof of what I have said above. And as a postscript, could I point out that here was the chance to increase the active membership of WN by more than 10% in one go. But I wonder whether you really want more editors. Tony1 (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
To be clear I was not thinking of blocking anyone, rather I was just noting my support for blocks as a cool down or de-escalation tool. If they are to be used this way everyone acting poorly should be blocked, not just one side. That said, I do not think the discussion was yet to the point in which blocks were necessary and they should definitely not have been done by an involved party. --Cspurrier (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Brian, your behavior to Tony when he landed here was shocking and abhorrent. Frankly, experienced editors from Wikipedia who have looked in at the style guide are gobsmacked over how awful it is. Tony was potentially a new, hard-working contributor; he certainly is over on en.WP. Yet, notwithstanding his exhibitting the politeness expected of a newcomer, you saw fit to write this:
  • Excessive verbiage is an unneeded, and unwelcome burden on this community. I will respond to your ramblings with two, curt, terse points:
  1. Don't try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
  2. Your input is without merit.
I'm not open to debate on that second point, follow the link provided. When you qualify as a valued content contributor then I'll give you the time of day over minutae of project policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that your link was to Wikidictionary’s “meritocracy” entry, which is defined as “Rule by merit, and talent.” And until Tony actually exhibits any talent, he is undeserving of the “time of day” from you.
How charming.
Never mind that Tony is a professional writer with years of experience on Wikipedia’s manuals of style. Never mind that Wikinews’ style guide is a total joke; you didn’t bother to learn one iota about what Tony had to offer because you instantly took offense to what you perceived as an intrusion by an outsider. So without having a single flying-fuck of an idea of who you were dealing with, you wrote that his input was without merit and this was because Wikinews is a meritocracy where merit and talent are required to have standing and for someone to get the time of day from you. You totally confused “what you dislike because of perceived trespass” with “talent and desire to roll up one’s sleeves.” Where did you get your phenomenal people and leadership skills?
And then you acted shocked when I civilly but directly took you to task for the above, as well as Amgine for writing to Tony as follows: “But likely you are unable to make that judgment because you are not yet a part of the community.” The sum total of my having done so was the three to-the-point posts here.
The simple fact is that you fancy WN as a venue that you own and you have the wisdom of Job. You were an involved admin in a minor dispute and yet you saw fit to block two editors for what amounted to simple, civil dissent that was contrary to your desires. Rather than seek out an uninvolved admin to block (you would have been denied), you blocked us yourself. While that was a splendid demonstration of your power (does that make you feel good?), and while you fancy yourself as having the wisdom to assume these powers without bias and passion, that is an illusion. You are human; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That you are a big fish in an awfully small pond has all gone to your head. I find your attitude utterly disgusting… literally.
This is no longer about the style guide for me. This is entirely about how Wikinews is currently operated by a damned small club that needs to grow so its processes can mature to put checks on power-drunk individuals like you.
I will have absolutely nothing more to do with this place from hereon. I find individuals like Blood Red Sandman to have rare wisdom and maturity. I also find that Amgine is really quite a good joe after jettisoning group-think and tempering his initial “protect my friends at all cost”-mode. You, on the other hand, are an altogether different league, drunk with power and arrogant. Please delete my account. Nothing good can come of this place as long as you wield power with near-impunity. If your ‘Crat and Admin powers were stripped from you, you would no-doubt quit the project; I know that much about you already. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Diego was that really helpful? He made a small mistake in a rather long message. If it really bothered you, a polite note on his talk page would have been much better then this. --Cspurrier (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I know it wasn't. I should even remove this... --Diego Grez return fire 17:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


If this whole debacle is to be de-escalated, there has to be a climbdown on both sides.

I'm happy to accept Craig's point that "from the big city" is meant to be self-deprecating, if Greg and Tony can understand that The Other Place is a wry, mocking shorthand for conflict between the UK's two main political entities; much like Congress vs Senate.

In reflecting on recent conflict, both Tony1 and I have assumed usual local-project deference could be expected, or even demanded. Perhaps, perhaps not. I was involved through complaints of Tony1 acting to Amerikanise the SG; being confronted with a 'wall of words' does not incline one to a sympathetic position. I do want more contributors to this project, but with an understanding of the difficulties the project faces.

Working from the implied context thar Greg and Tony have made highly valued contributions in The Other Place, I'll invite them to offer a solution to the US vs rest-of-the-world spelling issue around our SG. Many, many UK and Commonwealth contributors need due respect, Amerikanizing the entire document should never happen. That said, a robust rewrite has always been somewhere on the to-do list.

To mirror Greg, I'll quote from a favourite movie of mine: "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

I'll ignore the barbs and baiting, scratch another notch in the <x> days without swearing on wiki, plus demands for my head on a platter with apple in mouth, if similar reconciliatory gestures are fortncoming.

Wikinews requires a passion, nobody does it for the Monet. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I get pissed when people write so much that the browser on this phone refuses to allow appending. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see a clear rationale, with diffs, for the block of Tony1. I'm trying to understand what has lead to this crisis. So far, all I can see is complaints about him writing too much stuff. It would be helpful if you could explain the specific reasons why the block was beneficial to the project, or conversely to acknowledge that it was in error. Chzz (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Chzz. Could you provide some diffs as to why Tony1 was blocked. Honestly, all I saw was discussion on the style guide talk page, which does need work. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've been watching this unfold, but haven't really gotten involved yet. I second the motion of Chzz, I would like to see some examples of why Tony1 was blocked, as I can not a find a clear rational why. red-thunder. 22:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Edit warring, a generally confrontational attitude, and the repeat excess verbiage. Are none of you able to read the simple phrase I am editing from a mobile device? Just look at Tony's attitude when Diego removed a message left by an unauthorised bot. Diffs will not be forthcoming. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Where is my edit-warring, please? And where is my attempt to Americanise? The greater issue is page-consistency of spelling, whichever variety it is started in, but I didn't want to touch that. My issues are with the surface language and organisation of the SG. My original post began with a rationale for why the whole SG needs a collaborative copy-edit. I set out a few existing paragraphs from the top and suggested copy-edited versions one after the other. It was a substantial post, but necessary to kick off a collaborative effort that threatens no one and includes everyone. If it contains "excess verbiage", could you point it out? The huge amount of text written by you and Amgine to keep me out should not be reframed as my verbiage, should it? I note that a few tinkerings to the SG today have been waved through. Clearly, a number of editors here have been too frightened to take on the iron grip with which the SG is held by a few editors. But it is a basic document—one of the first that should be visited by new editors who want to learn how to do it. As people have said here, it really needs a going-through.
I'm still waiting for a valid explanation of why I was blocked. And I'm waiting to hear why Mr McNeil remains unsanctioned for breaching a basic measure, the "uninvolved" rule for admin actions; and why his example of bullying, put-downs and rudeness is allowed to go unnoticed. He has come close to bragging about the put-downs on his talk page. The continually repeated The other place (read en.WP) might have been a light-hearted in-joke originally, but it is becoming a self-destructive mantra that removes the possibility of what should be productive alliances between the projects. In short: it has become childish. I repeat my call that he take a break from admin/crat duties and reconsider his role here. Tony1 (talk) 04:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
If this were comedy, I'm sure I would like this... I really would. The contrived defence is surreal, and reminds me of a Rowan Atkinson sketch in which a policeman would arrest a black suspect of 'walking on the cracks of the pavement'. Such is the fundamental right of free speech, when asked to give an explanation, Brian McNeil uses a motivation which no-one would ever consider a blockable offence – "I am editing from a mobile device" – which merely shows his total self-centredness. In refusing to provide the simplest of diffs – also never an unreasonable request – never have I come across such arrogance. Honestly, Who The Fuck does Brian McNeil think he is??? Seems like he would put himself above Jimmy Wales by saying that! --Ohconfucius (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Item A: Jimmy Wales is not sacred around here (We were founded by Erik Moller, who is neither sacred, nor has an active role in the project.) Well we think Jimbo is a swell guy, and generally get along well with him, invoking his name in vein isn't going to score you points here (quite the opposite as a matter of fact. Actually come to think about it, does using jimbo's name in vein actually score you points at 'pedia? Its not exactly a valid argument).
Item B: block rationale. I think most people (everyone) agrees that the block should have come from an uninvolved party, and after discussing this conflict with an uninvolved third party, I've come to the conclusion that the blocking at that time was probably inappropriate. However with that said, a block justification can go along these lines (These are what my justification would be, I have no idea how closely they relate to brianmc's)
  • Admins may block people who "Are trouble-makers who are not contributing to our goals". (that's a direct quote btw). In practise that means that people who do not make valuable contributions (valuable being used loosely here to mean pretty much anything positive) but have negative contributions, or whose negative contributions outweigh their positive contributions can be blocked.
  • Tony1 upon getting here behaves very rudely towards Diego [7]. (I consider Diego's action there reasonable, if perhaps a little over-zealous. Wikinews is not a free web host to receive off-topic messages. However, even if you consider Diego's actions to be unreasonable, you still should politely ask what happened as opposed to yelling. Yelling at other people as one of your first actions coming to a new place does not bode well)
  • Tony1 then gets into a dispute well trying to change a core policy, and says nasty things to a number of people (although in the interest of fairness, I will admit this is not one sided).
  • Tony1 is also blocked on another wiki with comment "keep your crusade on your own wiki.". Well that in itself really doesn't affect his status here, it does suggest he has trouble understanding cultural differences between wikis, and/or understanding proper standards of behaviour in places that are not enwikipedia. This could be used as a supporting reason for the block; however, this is really a minor point though as he should be judged for actions here, not elsewhere.
  • Tony's only attempt at a positive contribution is some rather controversial modifications to the style guide. (Which I would call that a failure at positive contribution). Getting into fights right from the get-go without counter-balancing it with productive behaviour really is not a good way to start at a new place.
  • Thus Tony is making a bunch of negative contributions (starting fights with everyone), without coinciding positive contributions. After some reflection I feel that this is to early a stage to block for such a reason (he could have just got off on a very bad foot, and a pattern should be apparent before blocking for this), and in general such blocks should only be handed out carefully, after long discussion (and certainly not by such an involved admin). However with that said, I can see the argument for the block. (Now, if you all don't mind, please tear me to shreds. Cheers) Bawolff 11:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


Bawolff, thanks for your comments, and thanks for asking for my own opinion. I truly think I am a neutral observer in this, and as such offer my opinion of the situation, given the statements I have heard thus far.

I remain unconvinced that Tony1's "negative contributions outweigh their positive" given that his contribs to non-discussion pages are so few.

His first contrib was to Wikinews:Code of Ethics [8] and remains; it appears uncontroversial, and certainly looks like a positive contribution.

Tony1 has only made three edits to SG [9] [10] [11], one of which was fixing a typo of his own. Beyond that, he entered into discussions on the talk page. Is that seriously considered 'edit-warring'?

The only claim I have seen to 'starting fights' or anything like disruption is his post on Diego's post entitled "Stay off my talk page", saying "Do not remove posts that I have requested from my talk page. How dare you." [12]. This is in no way a personal attack, and I find it hard to interpret it as a heinous crime, particularly given that the actual content removal had the rather rude "huh? take this spam elsewhere" [13]. I have seen no evidence that Ttony1's intentions were anything other than improvements to this project.

At the head of this page, is a key quotation from the blocking policy: Admins should only do this as a last resort - efforts to educate must be made first, followed by warnings. Tony1 received no warnings.

I may have missed something - which is why I asked Brian for explanation and diffs. I do not consider "a generally confrontational attitude" to be a reasonable explanation for an admin action, especially without diff evidence. The cry of "I am editing from a mobile device" seems very bizarre; I didn't ask for any instant answers; I merely requested clarification.

It is absolutely essential that administrators refrain from using their position of trust in their own interests. At this stage, I can only see that Tony1 was blocked, without warning, simply because Brian did not agree with his suggestions for the style guide. If that is a case, it is a misuse of admin tools. Chzz (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Head=>Desk participantsEdit

I would like to mention, as an aside to the participants in the threads here, that WN:AAA is not a discussion page, nor is it the Water cooler. And for the Wikinewsies who've been sucked into this... discussion, may I point out the review backlog was blasted by Pi Zero because it had gotten too long (again)? - Amgine | t 14:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion concerns an illegal blocking by Brain McNeil. It is entirely appropriate on this page. To respond to Bawolff:
  • "Tony1 then gets into a dispute well trying to change a core policy, and says nasty things to a number of people (although in the interest of fairness, I will admit this is not one sided)." Diffs for the "nasty" things I said, please? I don't see them. You name me, but not Brian McNeil. This seems way out of proportion, given that I was rude to no one (although I am often direct); but Brian McNeil's posts to me were abusive, bullying, and by his own admission, insulting. Is your account balanced in this respect?
  • "behaves very rudely towards Diego"—You neglect the further exchange with Diego, in which there was a softening by both parties. A bit one-sided to quote selectively, don't you think?
  • "Tony1 is also blocked on another wiki with comment "keep your crusade on your own wiki.". Well that in itself really doesn't affect his status here, ... This could be used as a supporting reason for the block; however, this is really a minor point though as he should be judged for actions here, not elsewhere." If so, why write a longish paragraph about it. The French block was, in fact, precipitated by the actions of someone else, not by me; but such details can be lost on a wiki. But is your case so weak that you feel you need to smear me with that?
  • "Thus Tony is making a bunch of negative contributions (starting fights with everyone)". Any project that took a sane attitude to users and contributions would not regard attempts to fix that badly written and organised style guide as negative contributions; nor would it characterise a proposal to improve the wording of its opening as "starting fights". This is indeed a sick culture, and Bawolff, you seem to be in on the game.
I have received an email from a WN regular saying how appalled they are at the way I have been treated. Actually, I feel lucky compared with Matthewedwards, who left only a few months ago after being treated dreadfully (look at the edit-summary), and here (straight after Matthew's grandmother had died), or HJ Mitchell, who has left in disgust after a bout of abusive behaviour from BM: no, the email was from a current regular at WN who would not dare to speak out on-wiki.
This is not to mention the gobsmacked reactions of WPians who are watching this. Be as anti-WP as you wish—that is one Brian-McNeil-led symptom of the malaise on this project—but classifying such people as enemies or intruders will perpetuate the malaise. WN needs to change its model and its culture, but you have set yourselves against even the most elementary processes for surface improvement, let alone real change that can give this project a strong trajectory into the future. It is very sad.
I'm sorry, you need to get a grip and desysop this user, even if he has made very good contributions in the past; or at the very least, give him time off to reflect. As someone dared to point out on his talk page, he has written no news reports for many months, while bludgeoning others for not doing so.
I am preparing a report to the Wikimedia Foundation Board on the matter. I do not believe WN should receive precious Foundation funding, technical support, or server space while this situation continues. Tony1 (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


Enough is enough. This argument has gone on long enough. No one, especially the random wikipedians stopping by, are helping this situation. The admins were overly quick to ban and the new users are acting like trolls. The constant bickering here is getting us no where. Are we all clear on that?

To Brian & Diego & Related - Chill the hell out. Stop biting the newbies. You know you did it. You shouldn't have been so fast to ban. If they aren't flat out trolling, WARNINGS. We loveeeee to ban happy, I love to ban happy, but moderation.

Newbies & related wikipedians - Demanding to have your way on a project that you know nothing about. The admins were quick to draw, but you haven't elevated yourselves above them, you have infact proved their suspicions of trolling.

Now everyone go take a break, not a request. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the steward didn't think much of your choking off of calls for Brian McNeil to explain his behaviour and actions. The community expects a bureacrat to act with neutrality at all times. and I'm sure a lot of people don't agree with the subsequent admin action to hide them in the archives. The discussion has indeed migrated to a number of other places. Tony1 (talk) 04:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Craig is a local 'crat. He unprotected a page which generally shouldn't be protected (as it is "a page designed to allow users to alert admins" as he put it). I agree with him on this. I think he also would agree that the conversation that was taking place here, shouldn't be done here. It was not a page I wanted to protect, but I felt it need be done to get this to settle down. I have no knowledge of the archiving. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, I lost my steward bit earlier this year for inactivity. The water cooler or dispute resolution would be better venues. This page is designed more for issues requiring immediate admin action and brief discussions of admin actions --Cspurrier (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Block requestEdit

(Wasn't there a section for this?) Kele (talk · contribs)

Spamming - Amgine | t 06:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)