29 May

[[Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/Archive/2006/05|archived]]

Pictures from Abu Ghraib

In an article some time ago there was pictures published of abuse and torture at Abu Ghraib. They was reverted with the reason that publishing them is a violation of Geneva Convention. Then the discusion continued with Geneva Convention doesn't Apply. I find Deprifry:s argumentation good and dont think it aply here as a argument to remove tho pictures. To avoid a new "Geneva Convention discusion" if it in the future is actual to use these pictures in articles I want a clear answer about the subject if it is possible. international 20:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a "whistle blower's protection" policy?

If a contributor in good faith has concerns that 1 or more wikinews editors are systematically sabotaging the project; how can that "whistle blower" bring the matter to the attention of the community without being accused of personal attacks and subsequently blocked? Do we have any existing policy which would protect such "whistle blowing" and ,if not, perhaps we should have a "whistle blower's protection" policy as do many large organizations. Neutralizer 09:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot perform an action without making personal attacks, then you do not deserve to perform that action at all. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it would be hard to, If you have solid (and I mean solid, as in there is no possibility you're are wrong what so ever) then you could make such statements in a way thats not-offensive, or a personal attack. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, for the record, I oppose any "whistleblower protection" policy. Be responsible for your own actions. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we implicitly have one: your always free to contact any wikinews editor and ask them to write/submit the article for you. You just lose all control over the article. If your own sources are weak, you'll need an anonymous interview, which means contacting wikinews editors twice, once to set up the interview page, and once to submit the answers, but its still pretty good since these could be diffrent editors in diffrent countries. In all cases, simply asking another to help you sets a higher bar to entry so I think we'll keep the garbage out, MrM. Oh, BTW, Jimbo has also explained how to edit wikipedia, etc. using special authenticated Tor proxies (presumably diffrent from the ones Amgine blocked). Nyarlathotep 13:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we have policies in place for dealing with this situation. The fact of the matter is, if you feel you have been blocked for constructively critising an administrator then you can ask an admin to look at the decision - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, posting to the mailing-list does not require you to reveal your Wikinews username publicly. Perhaps you could express your grievances via the Wikinews mailing list. But I do feel that this idea is a slightly underhanded one. PVJ 13:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

28 May

Off-Site non-transparent decision making

Isn't Wikinews supposed to be transparent with a historical edit trail? What are we going to do about ever increasing non-transparent administrative decision making and planning such as this; whereby MrM apparently went off-site to engineer a retaliatory block of International. As we can see, records of those discussions are not available for public transparency purpurses.

I would propose that all administrative discussions concerning blocks be done on Wikinews pages. Neutralizer 09:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. IRC is important in my opinion. I don't understand why logging isn't allowed, but I think its a WMF and freenode policy.

If you're are refering to the thing on journawiki about your block about 6 months ago - From what I could tell, it was one user who edited it, and used it to organize his/her thoughts instead of notepad. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bawolff,this is the recent incident that caught my attention. Neutralizer 01:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well admins still obviously need to justify their actions on site, but I think they should be free to discuss it on IRC if they so choose to. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking "harrassment"?

Please note the question mark in this topic heading as this is not an accusation but rather a question for the opinions/discussion of others. To me the recent Blocking action and commentary by BMcNeil feel like they may qualify for at least 2 aspects of w:Wikipedia:Harassment our non-harrassment policy. His recent block of me was never justified to anyone,even when he was queried by others, and his follow up threats of ever increasing blocks for any similar edits of mine (which he never showed were wrongful in the first place) puts me in a position where I can not respond at all to anyone about anything without risking a long block.

I need to know if the community sees this the way I do, in which case, perhaps we need a policy specifically addressing something we could call "block harrassment". The only alternative I can see is that I simply will not be able to respond at all to many edits coming my way. Neutralizer 12:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed with that block, mild rudeness should not be a blocking offense. Users should be free to respond and participate in discussions without fear of blocks. WN:E violations, if we believe blocking is required, should be dealt with by cool down blocks of 20-60mins. If I had noticed the block, I would have probably unblocked both of you or shorted the block drastically. I do not see how Brian's actions qualify as harassment, but even if they did thats pedia's policy ours is covered in the disruption part of our blocking policy.--Cspurrier 14:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CSpurrier as I needed some reassurance that I wasn't just imagining the possible inappropriateness of the block. I agree there was no "harrassment" in the block itself but the threat of future severe blocks for similar edits by me feels quite intimidating. I, personally, will just try to be extra controlled in responses which is likely a good thing. Thanks again for your input on the issue, Craig. Neutralizer 16:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel comfortable that there is such an amount of pressure for me to justify a block I labelled as "for disruption", and do so in a detailed manner. To go through the individual diffs and add a commentary as some would seem to wish I do would most likely end up falling under mounting a personal attack. My decision was a judgement call, and I based it on Neutralizer going from one block back to complaining and demanding that someone sympathetic to his position retaliate. If demanding that someone shoot back on his behalf isn't treating the wiki as a theatre of war, I don't know what is.

block log entries show Borofkin's block immediately prior to mine, expiring on May 1, 8:03.

Here's the diff that provoked the two blocks, immediately after that: [1]. Read it, there's demands for blocks, and a whole host of other unpleasantness among the 25 edits Neutralizer made in that diff. DragonFire1024 was blocked because he has sparred with Neutralizer in the past as much as for doing so in that incident. His "crime" was responding to provocative statements and giving Neutralizer an excuse to repeat his calls for war. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thats a tough one. I think this is sort of riding on the recent problems with mrm. I don't know, but contributors must be able to express an opinion. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, I looked at the diff and can't see a reason for a block -- neither for Neutralizer nor Dragonfire nor any of the other users that got caught up in the diff. Cspurriers comments are spot-on (imo). Also, I do not see how posting diffs with short explanation could be seen as a "personal attack". For reference how other people document a block see [2], [3] for example. --vonbergm 00:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me ditto Bawolff's statements. A lot of unnecessary blocks are occurring because, and only because, personal attacks have been broadened to encompass almost everything short of a negative comment about another user (and hence, are grounds for blocking on obscure cases). I myself do not wish to assess this block, but will make note that I am aware of it. I trust that Brianmc's actions were done only in the best interests of the wiki, and more than likely he avoided another civil war by performing these blocks. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't agree with your assessment of blocking and personal attacks. As I have stated numerous times during the past week, if a user makes a personal attack, it should be patiently explained on their talk page why the edit was considered a personal attack, and why personal attacks are not acceptable. If the attacks continue, they should be warned that repeated personal attacks may result in a block, and if the user continues making personal attacks, only then they should be blocked, for a short period of time (1-2 hours) and then increasing for repeats. There are a very small number of users who are essentially on "personal attack probation" where their ongoing WN:E violations have been so numerous, serious, and well documented that little tolerance is shown to them when a personal attack is made. This does not apply to all users, only that very small number whose editing has become disruptive. - Borofkin 02:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one who Borofkin is likely referring to, I want to say I fully endorse the "short leash" approach for us who are on "personal attack probation" as I believe that is the only way to have a peaceful place with the personalities involved. Having said that, Brian might have been tired or distracted or whatever, but that block of DF and me was completely without any merit at all, especially since the so called "theatre of war"'s curtain had already closed. Neutralizer 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews Censorship Aspect of Cowicide Blocks

I just started a story on censorship in China. We all know about the complicity by Yahoo in getting people locked up there. We all know about the human rights abuses there. I am very concerned about the fact there was the locking of this User's talk page because he used the term "Chinese communist bastards" and the locking admin's comment about how people in China "respect and prefer their government". I am really concerned about the lack of due process with this User as we should be about any User. I still don't know what proof the blockers have nor why they are not using the de-editing Arbcom process we recently established. Neutralizer 18:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an arbcom member, What are you talking about. I don't have a clue what you mean by de-editing. (wasn't that a failed proposal by either mrm or Amgine a while back? similiar to wikipedia's quick votes?) Anyways, He was blocked origionally for the communist comment, but he would proably have been unblocked by know, if it was just for that. The main issue is he repetitivly used open proxies to get around his block. Especially with his history, that I think is the main reason he's still blocked. 19:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have put this on admin alert as I feel it is crucial that all Users be allowed due process here. There is a substantial discussion above and absolutely no concensus that Cowicide should be banned; yet MrM did it unilaterally. Also, I do think that Arbcom can be used for de-editing or certainly for a lifetime ban. This is an important issue for the admins to deal with so I am calling for a vote on the admin alert page as to whether this lifetime block/ban should be left standing without community concensus. Neutralizer 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this edit above was never addressed;

"Indeed; sockpuppet allegations must be proven. Until then, it's unusable evidence. I can recall two events in which people were accused of sockpuppetry, but they weren't true. All sockpuppet-related evidence must be proven with a CheckUser. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 20:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)"

How were these open proxie allegations proved? Is there proof? Neutralizer 19:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cowicide's Response

Cowicide asked that his response to the accusations be noted. Here is the link to his talk page Neutralizer 19:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing block and talk page protection of User:Cowicide

Note; this is something that needs to be settled,imo, if the project's policies are to have integrity. The discussion below is being moved here from the admin alert page as it was apparently not seen as an urgent matter for the admins and the suggestion was that such matters be put into the water cooler instead.

If this User is to be permanently banned it should be done through our processes unless we want to succomb to arbitrariness and authoritarianism; in which case we are adapting an approach similar to that of the USA with putting people into Guantanamo Bay because they have been labeled by someone in authority as a bad person. Please pardon my analogy if it is "over the top", but I really have a hatred for arbitrary un-limited detentions of any type. Neutralizer 00:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This block was under active discussion and seems to have been archived? Also, the IP seems to be blocked which may hinder innocent contributors.

Will our admins please review the block of Cowicide and report to the community why Cowicide is still blocked and for how long will he be? Neutralizer 18:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then the admins will be here for quite a few hours because of the sockpuppets Cowicide was using. He is blocked because he vandalized talk pages, personal attacks...And if you check the block log, you will find the reasonms for his blocks. Jason Safoutin 18:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets must be proven,not alleged. MrM and Amgine (in referrence to Vonbergm) have been so wrong about sockpuppet allegations before that they have no credibility in this regard, at least not in my mind. Neutralizer 18:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; sockpuppet allegations must be proven. Until then, it's unusable evidence. I can recall two events in which people were accused of sockpuppetry, but they weren't true. All sockpuppet-related evidence must be proven with a CheckUser. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 20:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where in policy does it say " sockpuppet-related evidence must be proven with a CheckUser" to the best of my knowage is does not say thatin current policy Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but again, look at the block log. You can see that Cowicide used, more than I can count, sockpouppets to edit his talk and user page. Not to mention he used them to vandalize user pages. Do you look at the logs? I was here and watching when he was blocked. So far, you have provided absolutely no reason as to why he should be unblocked. Jason Safoutin 18:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is now feeling quite uncomfortable because what Chiacomo seems to be saying is that there is no legal justification for a continuing block against this User but there will be one anyway because the jailhouse guards won't open the door even though the prisoner has completed his sentence. In my view this would be arbitrary authoritarianism at its worst as we should be governed by our policies and not by arbitrariness nor authoritarianism. If admins feel this User is so bad he should never edit again then put him into DR or Arbcom for de-editing if you think you have a case; but in the meantime, please set this user free as is your duty; at least thats the way it seems to me from what's been said. Neutralizer 03:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiacomo has removed his edits and suggested(I think) that this link also be provided for anyone who wishes to see his edits. Apologies if I did something wrong in terms of format. Neutralizer 00:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually he was almost unblocked, but then he used about 25 various ips to do stuff he was blocked for, which I personnally think stoped him from being unblocked if he just waited a day. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was prepared to unblock him -- before his flurry of vandalism (or whatever you call it). --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 questions;

Is Cowcide still blocked?
If so, for how long?
Do we have proof that he did what he is being accused of? Neutralizer 01:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He signed some of his posts (from open proxies), linked to his website in other posts, and signed and linked in some. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repost my comment on the (now) archived page:

Quote

Sockpuppet list from August of anon who signed messages as "Cowicide", or whom assisted the vandalism made by handle. Note external postings by user: haloscan (Dated March 7, 2006) indymedia needlenose. To support these statements that this is infact Cowicide posting these messages, view the indymedia link above. In one of the comments, you'll notice the user announced his new website, iamtv.tv. Note User:Cowicide's revision of his userpage: [4] (offensive link points to iamtv.tv). Note recent interaction with Amgine: [5], [6]. I see no good faith on the actions of this user that can be assumed their willingness to conform to Wikinews policy, and note their history and postings elsewhere are encouraging others to disregard them as well. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info; I don't see how we can punish anyone here for stuff they are accused of doing elsewhere; we have enough trouble dealing with stuff people do here. Also, I suppose that (even if one assumes the worst of this User) Wikinews, much like America, should not,imo, abandon it's principles and due process in an effort to hinder disruptors because in doing that we would be doing more damage to the project than any disruptor could do. Please advise;

Is Cowcide still blocked?
If so, for how long? Neutralizer 05:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have witnessed Cowicides recent vandalism and attacks. I see him as a threat to the project. And if unblocked will do no benefit to Wikinews. Since before he was blocked during and up to this point, Cowicide has given me absolutely no reason whatsoever as to how he helps this project. Jason Safoutin 05:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. He is still blocked. The current block, I think, is infinite. For additional information, please see these "contributions" he's made to our project recently: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. He also made very specific threats against the project (last year, I think, or early this year), stating that he would "shut us down" as well as vague threats against individuals. He claims some association with the Cult of the Dead Cow and has threatened repeatedly "sick them on" Wikinews. Following those threats (in August of 2005, I think), I contacted his ISP's abuse department and I believe his account (and his parents' -- his webpage was set up under a "child" sub-account according to the ISP) was cancelled or suspended as the abuse stopped shortly after. Incidentally, if he ever was in good standing with cDc, he's not now, apparently. I hope this information has been helpful. If absolutely necessary someone can probably dig back into the logs for examples of other contributions. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this exactly the type of situation that Arbcom was designed to handle? Neutralizer 01:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is the sort of situation that the community handles. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What really clinches it for me are the threats to the community and individuals... Administrators must act to protect the community and its editors.... But... I, personally, am considering reducing the block to 30 days from now (or tomorrow or some other time soon). I suspect this move would be unpopular among those members of the community who are aware of the user's true history, but, I believe that most editors are redeemable at some point. Perhaps that time is 30 days from today. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support Chiacomo's suggestion; but I also wonder why there is resistence to bringing the user up for de-editing if it is,indeed, justified? I should also point out that from my little bit of computer knowledge, and in light of the fact Cowcide denies making many edits that were blamed on him, isn't it possible that some or a lot of those edits were done by a prankster? Neutralizer 02:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent edits, above, he does not deny... and they didn't begin until after he was blocked (and his page protected for personally attacking a legitimate form of government, repeatedly). I hate the idea of de-editing -- the current de-editing policy is crap and the bar is set too high to regain editing rights... If Cowicide wishes to be unblocked, he might communicate via email (with an administrator or administrators probably) or via his talk page, which is now unprotected. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will put a note on his talk page to check out your edit here. Neutralizer 02:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term blocks of Cowicide seem well in order from what I can tell. The only problem that I see is the implementation of an infinite block. People grow up. We should not deny this fact (possibility?) and we should not rid people like Cowicide of a clear perspective on being able to change and contribute. Therefore I strongly support Chiacomo's initiative to change this into a long-term block. One months would be fine, three would also be appropriate in my opinion. Just my thoughts on this, did not have time to look into this earlier. --vonbergm 02:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support Chiacomo's suggestion, as the current block of him is certainly valid, according to WN:BP. He used multiple proxies back in August, and then again in April, both to circumvent other blocks. I doubt 30 days will have any effect on this user, and the only solution I see to this issue is to enact a permanent ban on the user and the IP address(es) that the user uses. This is a user who shows no wish to conform to Wikinews' policies, and has made that clear through the actions on the wiki. Why are we even discussing letting a repeat vandal with a reputation such as theirs to be given a block? The use of multiple open proxies - in multiple instances - show that there is absolutely no concern by this user to abide by any of the site's policies. To me, this user brought it on themselves when they attacked numerous pages, causing more site disruption in one night than this wiki usually sees in a month. In response to vonbergm, this is a series of multiple violations that have occurred in at least two instances, separated by about six months. One would think the bad practices that gave the user a block before hand would inform the user of their wrongdoing, and they would not repeat their vandalistic and disruptive behavior of editing here (please note User talk:Karen's history). However, this particular user did repeat those very same violations, in the very same fashion. They alone give the right for this account to be called a vandal account, and therefore have ground in WN:BP for an infinite block. Given the severity of the case, no amount of expirable time is enough. This user simply does not want to conform to Wikinews' operations or policies, and has shown only interest in disrupting them in numerous occasions. I do not support putting this block at 30 days; allowing a "chronic" repeat vandal into the community, when they have shown no appeal to adopt Wikinews' policies in their editing methods, is simply unacceptable. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced the block to 3 months. All (or most) editors are redeemable and I see a spark of hope in this user (as they didn't vandalize anything between Feb 5 and April 20th or so). So other administrators don't have to exert themselves, I will personally reblock this user if, whe he returns, he begins to abuse the community. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 03:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I think in view of his "time already served" that 1 month would have been more encouraging to the User; but I am also very glad to see the infinite designation dropped. Neutralizer 04:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "dropped". It is currently in review; WN:BP certainly gives authority to an indefinite block, and that is what I will push for. Using 12 different proxies in one night to circumvent one block doesn't sound like a constructive use of editing here (and mind you, that was only one of the times of the abuse). --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does MrM have proof it was he who did it or is this an assumption? Also, what is the fear? If he reoffends he can be blocked again...I don't get it,MrM. Please explain why there's a practical need for in indefinite block? If he is as good at getting aropund them as people seem to think, what's the point? Also, Chic. why 3 months? If he reoffends he can be blocked again and if not, why make him wait 3 months? Neutralizer 02:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no reason why any valuable contributor here would ever use 12 open proxies to circumvent one block; or employ extremely racist comments on this wiki. The use of open proxies for vandalism is more than one occurance [23][24][25]. This user has no respect for any of the wiki's users or policies, and only seeks to be a user here to employ political bias, as represented by his various comments elsewhere on the web. Why? Because there is way too much that his user has done, and there is absolutely no signs shown that suggest any type of reform or even apologies for any of the violations the user has done here. I have reinstated the infinite ban; on provision of WN:BP. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nofollow tag == turnoff

Not to get into flamewar about the nofollow tag, but seeing that tag on external links here is a huge disencentive. I contribute to various sites and, while I don't get paid for that I do get links. From my perspective, there's little reason for me to contribute here if all I get out of it is a mostly worthless link at that.

No fear of a flamewar -- this is a Wikimedia Foundation wide policy, I think. Wikinews is about news -- free news. Wikinews is not about increasing an external page's search engine rank. Editors should not be using Wikinews to increase traffic to other websites. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 06:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that any evidence that a user is doing this (promoting websites through Wikinews) can be permanently banned from Wikinews. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the above comment is not be read as meaning that the evidence can be permanently banned. Doldrums 09:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I have an issue I'd like discussed by the wider community, which relates to use of IBN Live for wikinews stories. User PVJ has posted two stories, verbatim from them and has apparently permission to use their material here. I suspect this is a case of both he and the people at IBN Live misunderstanding copyright law. There's some stuff on my talk page, and the conditions he was told on his talk page. I'd like a second opinion on this, but I'm leaning towards not copying stories from this source as it is too problematic. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Brian is right in saying that we shouldn't copy stories from sources if there is a risk of us violating copyright law.However both Brain and I contacted a Mr.Somanadh who is the Director of Web Operations for CNN-IBN,and is probably the highest authority we can consult so we have to assume that Mr.Somanadh's word should steer us clear of any copyright issues.My opinion is that we could continue to copy stories which CNN-IBN has not sourced from any third party (the AP)for example without any trouble.PVJ

04:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of America articles could be copied over too, but when that thought was brought forward before as a proposal it went no where. A sense of community would be lost if Wikinews simply re-publishes out-sourced news stories. -Edbrown05 04:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of America content can specifically be copied verbatim to Wikinews as it is released into the public domain. (Many images from VOA cannot be used however, as they are licensed for use on VOA by AP and others -- we don't have a license to use AP images and their license terms are incompatible with ours.) I don't know why we don't copy more content from the VOA site. We can do with it as we wish once it's copied over. IBNLive, however, has a specific policy restricting use of material from their website. That policy states in part, "You may not resell, redistribute, broadcast or transfer the information or use the information in a searchable, machine-readable database unless separately and specifically authorized in writing by ibnlive.com prior to such use." It seems very clear to me that we cannot copy stories from IBNLive verbatim. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 04:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with people using VOA content to start articles here on Wikinews. I would expect such articles to be significantly changed and improved by the community before they were published, however. - Borofkin 07:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of where they came from, articles imported from other sources also must meet all other policies, guidelines, and criteria. Just a reminder :). --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those policy reminders disgust me MrM... you act like this is a police state. -Edbrown05 04:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, too bad Ed. Policies is what keeps this place running - not the complaining of them. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would articles form other sources even want to be included here in Wikinews? -Edbrown05 05:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have, in fact, been several Wikinews articles which originated on other sites such as VOA (and others). Some website owners specifically release their articles into the public domain or license them in some other way that is compatible with CC-BY. Many of these articles are pefectly acceptable NPOV submissions concerning current news events. Of course, we should always be willing and eager to improve these articles with additional sources and information. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 05:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think its great to do this as long (as mrm pointed out) there neutral and everything theres really nothing wrong with it. IMHO. Wikipedia also does similiar things with stuff from Briticanica 1911, and a couple of other sources. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On dealing with personal attacks

I realise that I'm a week late on this one, but I just wanted to make an observation. Blocking is a last resort when a user violates policy (with a couple of exceptions). This includes personal attacks. If a user makes a personal attack, it should be patiently explained on their talk page why the edit was considered a personal attack, and why personal attacks are not acceptable. If the attacks continue, they should be warned that repeated personal attacks may result in a block, and if the user continues making personal attacks, then they should be blocked. This process has been followed with Mrmiscellanious: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] and therefore I support this block, and I will support further blocks of Mrmiscellanious for single instances of personal attacks. If other users have made personal attacks, then attempts should be made to educate them to alter their behaviour. Blocking should be a last resort, and evidence of attempts to educate the user, and warn them, should be provided along with the block. - Borofkin 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, so I'm just posting so you know that I am aware of this statement. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing loss of contributors

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35]

These are 5 contributors the community lost in the past 2 months that I happen to know of. What,if anything, is the community going to do to fix this ongoing problem? Neutralizer 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. See the user creation log for new users. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I don't think the user creation log means much; the ones we lost were engaged enough to express their disappointment with the way they were treated and of the 4 shown, 3 had been quite active. Again it shows,imo, a really nasty "collateral damage" type of attitude to just ignore the complaints and not try to address those complaints. In fact, I find it an appauling attitude for a supposedly open and welcoming public project. Neutralizer 02:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit cynical, isn't it? ;-) From what I have observed, many of the disputes are admin-related. Wikinews has an extraordinarily high number of administrators. Perhaps we simply need to improve some of the adminship guidelines to avoid unnecessary acrimony. A cursory look at one of the cases above seems to have involved 3RR. This is one policy where I think too much flexibility is inappropriate. 3RR only works when it is applied evenly to everyone. If someone leaves because of a 3RR block, well, that's unfortunate, but we have to enforce that particular policy.--Eloquence 01:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is cynical,I think, is forming (excuse me) really shallow opinions based upon cursory looks. There was no 3 RR violation at all and not even close to being one. But Eloquence has highlighted the real problem,imo, which is that the loss of dozens of contributors each year (with a bad taste in their mouths) is held in so little regard as to not even attract 1/100 th. of the time and effort the "regulars" spend with esoteric baby squabbles. I'm sorry but I thought the very essence of this project was to attract and be pleasant to an ever increasing amount of new contributors; to have a vibrant and GROWING organism? Eloquence's reaction is very disappointing to me as it seems to reinforce the arrogant disregard with which many newcomers here are treated EVEN WHEN THEY TAKE THE TIME TO TELL US HOW THEY FEEL! Neutralizer 02:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To maybe tone down and elaborate on Neutralizer's point on 3RR. I agree with what Eloquence is saying and also with the comments on 3RR. But I do not see what the 3RR argument has to do with the cases cited above. (I know you said you did not look carefully at the cases, but I wanted to clarify this point.) If the "3RR case" is that of MateoP, he got blocked for "site disruption", not 3RR. Under review, two other administrators upheld the block arguing that MateoP violated 3RR (or at least the spirit of 3RR). Later, in a policy discussion, people argued that a block cannot exist separatly from its reason, but this is what seems to have happened in this case. The problem here was not so much that MateoP got blocked, but the problem was that it was not clear why he got blocked. I argue that this type of blocking is extremely harmful to the wiki, and apparently effective in driving away (at least one) user(s). --vonbergm 02:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the block was upheld because of 3RR when he didn't actually violate it, that was a mistake that should not have happened. Of course even three reverts aren't good, but they are not normally grounds for blocking. Perhaps the "disruption" part of the blocking policy is too vague, it seems like many of the controversies are about blocks under this guideline.--Eloquence 03:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not he actually did violate 3RR is one question. To me the more important one is that he was blocked for one reason, but in the review the block was upheld for a different one. This should not happen. If the reviewing admins believe he did violate 3RR instead of "site disruption", then he should have been reblocked for 3RR and the appropriate template should have been filled out according to policy. Then one could start discussing the merits of the 3RR accusation. --vonbergm 03:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "disruption" part of the policy is vague, but I am not sure that it could be made more clear without unreasonably inflating the appropriate section. Maybe "disruption" type blocks should never be done by a single administrator, but only in conjunction with another one. I think we have enough around to make this feasable, and good style would dictate that intends to block on this grounds would be first discussed on the IRC. --vonbergm 03:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me this issue is not so much about how our technical rules/policies are frequently misapplied and selectively applied by our janitors. I think anyone would have to be delusional to grade the collective administrative operations here over the past 6 months with any score higher than a F for results with maybe a D for effort (note I am not pointing at any 1 or a few but rather at the admin. group in its totality). But as with any volunteer group we have to live with what we have in the way of leadership. I do not want to talk anymore about process or rules; I think we need to address attitude. Now maybe this idea of hitting everyone with blocks at the first inkling of personal attacks is a good idea because that is kindof the direction I think we should go in to have a kinder and gentler place of peace. There are always 2 or 3 admins hanging around IRC acting silly or working on some special interviews or other such ego builders but I think they should all be concentrating on the basics for awhile and should be watching the discussions between our antagonists (like me) and new or more gentle types to make sure the gentle ones don't get their feelings hurt. When I review the treatment of the 4 people at the top I am ashamed that noone stepped in to help those 4 deal with the stress they were feeling...and I think it should be an admin or bureaucrat to step in if the pusher is an admin; just to even things out. That's what I suggest. We need to value our newcomers and gentle beings more and when need be to protect them from the type of aggressive treatment most of us have learned how to put up with. If we can't stop the perps, the least we can do is provide some bodyguards for the victims. If I were to come up with 1 word to describe how I think a lot of these newbies felt I would say the word would be "mugging". From now on I expect to see some guardian angels fly in to stand by these innocents when they are under attack. That's my suggestion. Neutralizer 03:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the way Amgine came in to stick up for Karen is exactly the kind of thing I am suggesting should be done much more often. Neutralizer 03:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are not anymore important than I or anyone else on this site admin or not. There was a lot more discussion that went on in several IRC channels in the past 24 hours to which you, Neut, choose not to be a part of. The fact that you think your feelings are more important than anyone elses, or Karens, or Amgines disturbs me. No one on this site should get "special treatment". Not even you or me. Jason Safoutin 03:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IRC is 'out' there, it's not part of Wikinews. -Edbrown05 04:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? Maybe if you would participate, then you would find it useful, or not. It does not have to be "part of Wikinews." Its not my problem or anyone eslses if you refuse to participate in those discussions. Jason Safoutin 04:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it is not transparent, debate there goes on behind the back of Wikinews. -Edbrown05 04:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of anglo-american NPOV

here Neutralizer 12:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy changes without discussion

BrianMc has deleted this portion of NPOV without discussion or consensus. Neutralizer 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now someone has blocked the section after Brian's unilateral change

It does seem that everyone knows our policies are decided by consensus; if the deleter knows that, please explain to me how it could be a good faith edit? And I repeat my question as to whether there will be no consequences to others for making such a unilateral policy deletion in the future. I admit to be confused about what the appropriate process is here and this is not the first time someone has made relevant policy changes unilaterally without community discussion nor notice until much later. Neutralizer 23:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is being dealt with on WN:ALERT. Please stop trying to split the discussion. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it the, in an wrong way removed, paragraf is still policy until a concensus decision is made. International 00:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I called upon all users except for those you communicate with to distract the community from the Arbcom case. I'm guilty. Who wants to handcuff me? --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amgine's Userbox policy, and babel proposal

Amgine, has come up with a draft Userbox policy, and babel proposal

The benefit of having this one, over other proposals, is that, it is in completed policy- ready to be put in to place, that has been created, with the concerns of other users taken in to account. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 07:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I didn't really come up with this; all the ideas came from the above discussion Cartman started, and to which a lot of people have contributed. It specifically implements Bawolff's whitelist idea, using the two classes of userboxes suggested.

The Babel userboxes I'm building are based on the Commons babel templates, but using a line of English as well as the specific language. You can see them at Babel system. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 07:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Nothing wrong with supressing categories for POV userboxes, but Categories are the proper way to handle constructive things, like babel. Nyarlathotep 07:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Proper"? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. Could you explain? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 07:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one example, we could use a DPL to list speakers of any given langauge. Nyarlathotep 07:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you'd like people to be able to list each other by affinity, thus using the site as a webhost. Especially since the other whitelist class is geographic location.

Since we have a translator's listing page, anyone may add themselves, thus giving you the list you request, but without the possibility of misuse of that listing. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 07:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, your system allows for any such miss use too, I'd just like to see miss use controlled by providing a cleaner presentation of the information which is beneficial. Nyarlathotep 07:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The use of a DPL is dramatically more prone to misuse than transclusion of a list. (it's also limited to a maximum of 50 returns, however, so heavily used userboxes would not be able to return complete lists anyway.) - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 08:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its more prone to missuse, but your right about the 50 returns limit, alright, doesn't matter much then I suppose. Nyarlathotep 13:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea of misuse as a listing is ridiculous. The operose systems you propose to circumvent what is a minor risk of a non-problem are pointless. Four new namespaces, and move on! StrangerInParadise 08:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No,Amgine; Your reasoning is esoteric and your proposal would be disruptive to the wiki. Please help us by writing some articles. Neutralizer 14:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For most things I don't think the DPL is needed. I do not see how either one is either more or less prone to missuse. (Well actually I'm not even sure what this mystical magical missue is...). What is wrong with this proposal. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amgine's proposal is operose, instruction-creepy, unduly restrictive, and unnecessary. The real question (so-called since no one has really answered it yet): what is wrong with my proposal? StrangerInParadise 22:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea and I think it'll work. Whitelists keep things organized and provide a way to keep certain dishonest individuals from spamming a namespace with nonmission things. This allows individual userboxes to be probed better in situations were we get someone trying to pass off eubonics as a language. --Sfullenwider 23:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Witelists are good, but its not a whitelist in the sence originally discussed, as its a complete ban on templates in user space. Nyarlathotep 23:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your scenario of concern, Sfullenwider, a user creates a userbox {{User ebn}} This user is a native speaker of ebonics, lists it in a directory, and puts it on a home page- is that fair summary? What do you think should be done about this? StrangerInParadise 23:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since some people don't like Amgine's, I would like to suggest a comprimise. Its basicly Amgine's but the requirements can be altered when you request the creation of a box if you can get concencuss to do so, for that specific box. see user:Bawolff/userbox (hopefully not too instruction creppy). SIP, I'm getting to your proposal. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

/me taps foot impatiently... =) StrangerInParadise 23:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StrangerInParadice, Theres nothing wrong with your proposal. I support a new ns for comunal user stuff. I peronally feel that user category: is unnecessay with Category:User/blah but thats a matter of opinion. The reason I think the big ugly whitelist is better, is because our goal is to be a news source, If we let alot of userboxes come, we might get stuck with alot of userbox spam. (and userboxes on the edge of acceptable). Then get stuck with delete, or not to delete arguments etc. If we take the proactive approach Only userboxes people think are a good idea are created. If someone creates a non-allowed userbox, you wouldn't believe how fast I can hit the delete button. It also stops lengthy arguments as to weather I should have del or not.

I think you (or neutralizer) compared this to a whitelist for articles a while back. A whitelist for articles would not be acceptable because it would slow down creation of articles and make it harder. Many users just wouldn't bother. A main point that makes a wiki work is how little effort you have to put in to create or change something. If you have to spend any amount of time to make it happen, many people just don't care. This is acceptable to userboxes however, because userboxes could easily get out of control if we're not careful, they are not the goal of this project, and if somewhere along the line a userbox doesn't exsist because someone didn't take the time to bother to create it, the project is not affected negativly. (whew, need to work on my sentence structure :P. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. The reason I've said that Category:User/blah would not work has to do with the idea of an NPOV product. I have said, If you lift [take only and put in a new wiki] Main, Help, Category and Template, you should get a complete NPOV news archive out of it. Did this make sense? The categories are necessary to the product, as are the templates, so they should not have any POV items in them at all. The user pages and talk pages, however, can be stripped off. This is also true for Wikipedia, and other Wikimedia projects. This is why we need the four new namespaces, regardless.

Yes, it was I who made the modest proposal of an article topic whitelist, only to show how deplorable the idea of a userbox whitelist would be. Your concerns about what would happen if we let a lot of userboxes come, are met by my proposal: we do nothing, really, except police offensive content as we do anyway. This does not interfere with our goal of being a news source. There is no indication that, userboxes could easily get out of control if we're not careful. Most of the problems with userboxes have been those who oppose them- whose collective actions to date, here and on Wikipedia, have been far more disruptive than anything to do with userboxes themselves. The boxes themselves have caused few problems.

StrangerInParadise 23:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point there in many ways. It should be noted that the category namespace is already poluted with policy pages and other user things. I honestly don't think it would be horrible either way. One possible issue with your proposal is technical: can any random namespace be a category like namespace. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to make sure I'm not stealing the credit for something that I didn't think of, I didn't origianly think of the whitelist idea. (I think it just appeared at arbcom one day, perhaps EdBrown05?) Bawolff ☺☻ 00:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my idea (though I probably read about the idea somewhere on pedia :) ) Stories already have a rule that conrols there content; NPOV. If we wanted to apply NPOV to userboxes we could, though we would end up with even fewer then with the white list--Cspurrier 01:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages also have rules governing their content, and these suffice for userboxes, hence the title of my proposal, Userboxes are controlled no differently from other talk page content, four new namespaces are created. StrangerInParadise 03:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud the community for coming up with a number of options for us to explore. I personally like SIP's because it addresses the issues I see. With a whitelist, instead of having a mass of delete requests we are going to have whitelist requests, so yes we are being proactive but I guess there would be more creation requests than deletion requests. Basically, I dont think there is an easy solution to the problem and we are not going to find one that everyone agrees on - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 22:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the appreciation, Cartman02au. I'd like to point out that, while there may- if we are lucky- be a mass of creation requests, there should be far fewer deletion requests, which is why whitelists are so instruction-creepy. The sad thing is that the hassle of a whitelist process will discourage people from creating any userboxes to begin with, which was the real intention all along. Whole areas of lively creative contribution have been closed in a fit of small-mindedness on our part, with no real gain to show for it. This is very un-wiki. StrangerInParadise 03:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple points:

Wikinews uses a whitelist for articles. Articles must be a current news event or phenomenon.
Talk pages are already governed, though less thoroughly enforced; discussion must be toward the improvement of the article.
Just in case you're unaware of it, a User category namespace will not work any differently than the currently proposed use of Special:Whatlinkshere in the babel system; the Category: namespace is unique within the MediaWiki software and you cannot define a second one.
Similarly, the Template: namespace works uniquely in the MediaWiki software, and while most of the functionality is available through simple inclusion not all functionality is there. That same exact level of functionality, but with reduced server cost, is available through the use of substitution.
Whitelists are used elsewhere within Wikinews, such as for fair use, because they are the most maintainable. They're also traditional to this community.

I haven't reviewed Bawolff's proposal, which I will do as soon as I'm done with this posting, but StrangerInParadise's proposal of multiple user namespaces has no benefit and is technically mistaken. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 05:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple responses:

Calling a whitelist the requirement that, articles must be a current news event or phenomenon, is entirely specious: as such, it is very broad, whereas the userbox whitelist is extremely narrow. Nice try!
I have already acknowleged the governance of talk pages, as well as userpages (which Amgine omitted).
Amgine is entirely correct about the uniqueness of namespace Category in MediaWiki, though this is not difficult to generalize to other namespaces (I've traced through the code and database). Alternatively, Bawolff's sugestion of name(sub)space Category:User/* also works on a practical level (it can be stripped off easily in a NPOV export).
Amgine is less correct about the uniqueness of namespace Template: it is only required to exist, which is not relevant to a putative namespace User Template.
I made no argument against whitelists in general, just as applied to userboxes (and, ad absurdum, news topics). Certainly, they are appropriate to licensing models.

Amgine concluding that my proposal has no benefit (as if he has somehow established this) is sloppy, and does not answer my original point: Amgine's proposal has no benefit, other than giving him one less class of page to delete out-of-process!

StrangerInParadise 06:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Bawolff's proposal: I prefer clear policy language which avoids disputes and arguments. Making category and template namespace possible, but up to interpretation of what makes it reasonable to do so, is in my opinion an invitation for conflict. Since neither of the namespaces is technically necessary to achieve the functionality of the userbox I am opposed to the use of "should" and "should not".

I am absolutely opposed to use of transclusion of userboxes. There is no benefit for Wikinews, or the Wikimedia Foundation, to the processing cost involved with every rebuilding of a userpage cache. Further, it enables organized spamming of users by affiliation; example being the Catholic pro-life association on Wikipedia, amongst others. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 06:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kept hearing about this epic battle with a Catholic pro-life group, and finally had a look. It turns out, an admin tried to have deleted a category of pro-life celebrities, and a concerned user invited several users listed as Catholic to comment. To counter this mortal threat to Wikipedia, userbox opponents have ever since been trying to dismantle user categories, and even What links here, as if a) this solves the problem, and b) it was somehow legitimate to propose the deletion in the first place! This is a non-problem. StrangerInParadise 06:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, userpage caches are rebuilt when the userpage changes (i.e., when someone adds a template), this is not a significant overhead. This is, again, an ideological problem trying desperately to pass itself off as a practical problem. StrangerInParadise 06:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username 67-21-48-122

Does anyone have an opinion on the username 67-21-48-122? Personally I find this username misleading - whenever I see it I think it is an IP address. Can everyone have a think about it in light of the Username guidelines. - Borofkin 01:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is an ip address at first glance. I do not think it matters much though, even if you think it is an ip address what does it change? --Cspurrier 01:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because they aren't an anonymous user. A username is a person's identity, and identity is very important on a Wiki such as this. To have a username that resembles an IP address is to obscure that identity. Imagine if we had 100 such usernames. - Borofkin 01:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I see is if a user creates an account with a IP other than their own - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 03:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally like it, but the user in question is fully within the Username guidelines. Confusing? Possibly, but then again, so are half of ours without any digits. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I once noticed a pattern of edits which suggested that those numbers were his real IP address, so I'm not sure it really is missleading. Not that I'd care if it did confuse anyone, usernames are harmless. Nyarlathotep 03:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't paticurly like it, but I think its fine. agree with mrm. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Just thought I'd see what the vibe was. - Borofkin 07:32, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was mildly amused when I first saw it. To me it stands out immediately that it isn't an IP address. It's choosing to apply to yourself the situation Patrick McGoohan found himself in after playing Number 6 with the catchphrase, "I am not a number" now he has to admit, "I will always be a Number". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This character just caused a commotion on the "3 hostages" article by changing a disputed title with no talk page comments; but Lyellin seems to feel this person knows something about "style". In any event, we have enough free speech inhibitors in place already; so I say let him call himself a number if he likes; if it was 666 then I might be worried:) (not really) Neutralizer 18:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Commontion" is hardly the word. But anyway, the user changed the headline to make it active voice, in accordance with the wiknews style guide which is linked to at the top of the page, Neutralizer. It was a good change, and I have no problem with this username as is. Lyellin

I have been watching the user for quite a few days now and he/she seems to have done very well for a news user. I think he/she likely was editing for Wikinews before. As long as the user does not cause any problems or issues, and is cooperative, as they have been so far, then I see NO problem with the username. Jason Safoutin 19:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Contributions/67.21.48.122

I see no problems with this user name. I think it's quite clever, in fact. Dan100 (Talk) 08:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is confusing and misleading. There is clearly no consensus it is acceptable. I will request the user to choose a less-confusing username, and have it changed by a Bureaucrat. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 21:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entertainment value has worn off... If User:Number 6 is available, this used should move to it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with the name. --vonbergm 17:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User - essence of comment
x Borofkin - misleading ... resembles an IP address
o Cspurrier - does not think it matters much
o Cartman02au - only problem is [inapplicable]
o MrMiscellanious - doesn't like it, but is fully within guidelines
o Nyarlathotep - not sure it really is misleading
o Bawolff - doesn't particularly like it, but thinks it's fine
x Brian McNeil - was mildly amused at first, ceased to be
o Neutralizer - let him call himself a number
o Lyellin - has no problem with this username
o Jason Safoutin - sees NO problem with the username
o Dan100 - sees no problems with this user name
x Amgine - confusing and misleading,
o StrangerInParadise - don't like it, but wouldn't object strongly
"There is clearly no consensus [that] it is acceptable."

I say there clearly is such a consensus (by 9 to 3), and people should move on to more important things. (Consensus on Wikinews does not mean unanimity [36].)
—67-21-48-122 13:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken as to the point of the conversation. The discussion is to find consensus that your name is *not* confusing or misleading. The arguments sited do not state the username is not confusing or misleading.

Can you argue that your username does not attempt to appear as an IP number? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 21:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vonbergm's comment brings the consensus to 10 to 3. I see the only point of my commenting further to be to attempt to persuade the three to change their opinions.

Borofkin thinks my username, 67-21-48-122, is misleading because "whenever I see it I think it is an IP address." However, when I neglect to log in or choose not to log in, what he sees is 67.21.48.122, my IP address. I explained that ten days ago on my User talk page [37]. I didn't choose that address, but it does lend itself to being converted into a username since it has (in the normal decimal representation) fewer digits than many other IP addresses have.
Furthermore, I'm likely to be at that address for a long while, and I am likely to be the only Wikinews participant at that address. So whenever a contribution from IP number 67.21.48.122 is seen, it can be presumed to be from me, user 67-21-48-122 . There is no such correspondence for other users, and the anonymity question is mine to be concerned about, or not. Rather than being confusing or misleading, my chosen username is, I think, confirmatory.

Brian McNeil was "mildly amused" at first but later "The entertainment value has worn off". That's fine with me. I didn't choose my username in order to amuse or entertain anyone, and I could care less if it no longer amuses or entertains. I am not here to provoke any kind of reaction, one way or another.

Neutralizer said, "we have enough free speech inhibitors in place already; so I say let him call himself a number if he likes". I appreciate that — I don't know which is worse, having numbers imposed on me against my wishes, or being deprived of the use of one that I do choose.
—67.21.48.122 17:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this discussion ongoing? Its a fine username, just leave him alone about it. Nyarlathotep 20:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are three reasons, Nyarlathotep:

The name causes issues while RC patrolling because it appears to be an IP address. (I have seen 4 different people mentioning this.)
The name is deliberately misleading/confusing; indicating the user has little interest in interacting with the community, but created the account solely to gain page-rename ability.
Despite have no connection to the username, the user adamantly rebuffs any request from the community to change the name, causing unnecessary friction with the community for no purpose.

It is not a fine user name. It is obviously confusing and misleading, which our policy does not allow. It is also a very easy and minor thing for a user who has no interest in interacting with the community to move to a simple username since it does bother some people. The same response would apply to a username others found offensive. (an example might be Jack_the_Ripper, since at least one WN contributor has been a prostitute and might find the name particularly offensive.) - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 17:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amgine, thanks for sharing an unrelated story. To the points that do relate, 2) is based on your assertion that the name is "deliberately misleading" for which you have no evidence. Making statements like this about the motivation of other users ignores "good faith" and is offensive. 3) The user has an obvious connection to the username, namely his IP address. The only reason why he has to go through the effort to defend his choice is that you make him do it (and he is not the only one that believes that the name is ok). Which leaves 1), the only point you brought up that might actually be a reason to change the name. I do not know what the interface of RC patrolling looks like, but I doubt that the name is acually a real problem as the dashes make it stand out clearly next to an IP address. Moreover, this name has gotten so much attention now (in part thanks to you), that you can hardly argue that it is obscure any more. As it seems to boil down to the single issue of RC patrolling, maybe we can take a poll to see who will be confused by the name. This discussion is getting ridiculous. --vonbergm 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for being dismissive of my experiences. It's nice to see such respect among community members.

Can you explain to me how selecting an IP number as a user name would not be deliberately attempting to appear to be an IP number?

Can you explain to me why he would rebuff at least 3 requests his name be changed?

The format of the RC changes is to list the username or IP address of the contributor. With exactly the same number of characters and appearances, the username is nearly indistinguishable from that of anon IPs - a simple string of numbers and separators. The user is actually using 2 different accounts, 67.21.48.122 and 67-21-48-122, as you can see in this conversation, as well as still editing from an anonymous IP which also shows up as 67.21.48.122. In a scroll of dozens or hundreds of edits by anonymous IPs and usernames this user's name does not stand out in the slightest.

Finally, can you explain to me how using an IP is not confusing or misleading? The policy is clear; the username is not. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 17:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amgine, the user name has always stood out to me, as dashes are quite obvious to me. I may see IP edits beginning in 67 and wonder if its him, but this is an issue with any promenent anon, and your not going to ban promenent anons. Anyway, your going to have to use a vote or arbitration or such to block this username, he's much to useful as a contributor. Why not just follow the arbitration procedure here? Nyarlathotep 17:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. You will just need to change the Username policy so it is no longer a violation. (Unblocking in violation of policy would not be a good thing.) Or, and much simpler, the user could request a name change. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 18:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amgine, I think you missed my point. It is fair that you do not understand the user's reasons for choosing the name. What is not fair is your assertions about the user's motives. Moreover, it seems clear from the above discussion that there are considerable differences when it comes to the interpretation of policy in regards to this issue, so I am glad to see that you changed your mind and unblocked the user again. So let's focus on the issue (if there is any). I don't believe the user created an account with username 67.21.48.122, but if this is the case then I agree that this would be misleading. Can someone with more experience verify if this info is correct? --vonbergm 18:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(From 67-21-48-122: the following is a horribly long -- my apologies -- rebuttal to Amgine's latest comments as of the time I began writing it. I choose to go ahead and add it, since I took the pains to compose it.)

I don't know about #1 above, but #2 and #3 are blatant falsehoods, so I have no knowledge of the motivation of Amgine's apparent vendetta against my chosen username. I have made my case and explained at length.

2 --The name is not seen to be unacceptably misleading or confusing by about 11 of 14 users who have expressed an opinion thusfar, and is absolutely not deliberately so. It is correct, as I myself was the first to write, that when I registered I was able to do everything I had wanted to do, other than move articles, without registering. So what? It is not necessary to register in order to "interact with the community."

3 -- After what I have written earlier, it is a reckless disregard for the truth to assert that I have no connection to my username, 67-21-48-122. I do notice that someone seems to have registered the username 67.21.48.122 . How that was accomplished I do not know: I attempted one time, at my first-ever registration, to register 67.21.48.122 and received a rejection message. A that point I chose and successfully registered using 67-21-48-122. I assume that the person who registered 67.21.48.122 may already have begun or be planning mischief in an effort to discredit me.

"The community," far from requesting that I change the username, have expressed acceptance of it. Only two users have seen fit to attempt to quash it -- Borofkin and Amgine.

That I, "the user," have caused "friction with the community," is similarly false. The friction over my username, 67-21-48-122, has been totally caused by about two users, and has been limited to them and me.

The repeated assertion that I "no interest in interacting with the community" is UNMERITORIOUS. I have exchanged views with various users on discussion pages, have frequently left comments to explain edits, and have once (already, having only been registered about three weeks) explained at great length why a headline was inappropriate, after which my interlocutor willingly made the change that I suggested.

I have contributed much, while remaining unfailingly civil as I am being now, confronted as I am with considerable provocation. I am not being adamant "for no purpose." The present matter is a test of whether the community tolerates the determination of a vocal minority to misrepresent facts and to impose their unreasonable wishes on one member.

Anyone wishing to contact me may do so, politely, at edp at darwinsys.com . There may be some delay due to the operation of a very effective system of protection against e-mail spam.

Since the following notice has been posted on my talk page, I may be unable to continue here much longer, without assistance from others:

I intend to block this account within 24 hours in compliance with Wikinews:Username policy. Please see Wikinews:Changing username to have your username changed to prevent the block. - Amgine | talk en.WN 17:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

--67.21.48.122 18:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how your user name is not to be confused with, or mislead one into thinking that your edits are from, an IP? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 18:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely I have said enough. I leave it to others to respond further.

—67-21-48-122 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Really. You have never said that your username is not confusing or misleading. You have never said your username was not a violation of policy. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 19:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tell you three times: my username is not confusing or misleading. My username was not and is not a violation of policy.

—67-21-48-122 19:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telling me, and explaining why you believe this to be true, are very different things. You have provided no argument that your username is no to be confused with, or mislead one to think it is, an IP. Because it is confusing or misleading in this manner, the username should be blocked. It would require very little effort on your part to use a non-confusing username, such as Number 6 as proposed by Brianmc or any random character set if you'd prefer. Your browser software is configurable to allow cookies, and clicking the remember me box when logging in will preserve your username for a long period of time, obviating your argument regarding editing whilst logged out.

I do not understand why you are opposed to avoiding confusion, frankly. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 20:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion remains the same: the username is confusing and misleading. It doesn't matter that the user has control of the IP address. The problem is that the user appears in RC to be anonymous. It doesn't matter which ip address it is, only that it is an IP address. - Borofkin 00:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User_talk:67-21-48-122:

This username is blocked according to username policy. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 01:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator criteria

Following the completion of the current RfAs, I propose that the criteria on WN:A for requesting adminship be modified to state:

Requesting adminship: You are probably qualified for adminship, provided that the following conditions are true:

You've done at least a month's work on Wikinews.
You are trusted by the community.

Users requesting adminship must be active members of the community for 30 days prior to their creation.

I think Policy has fallen behind practice. Surely we want our administrators to have been active at least 30 days and to have demonstrated at least the minimum commitment to the project. ~~I would propse simply removing the "Probably" from the above, but I like the way it's worded.~~ If there are no objections, I shall make this change to the page following in no less than 7 days. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 06:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken a sentence above to avoid confusion... What it means is that we *could* remove "probably" and accomplish the same purpose, but I like the way the existing text is written, so I'm only proposing the addition (beneath the current guidelines) of the phrase, "Users requesting adminship must be active members of the community for 30 days prior to their creation." --Chiacomo ^(talk) 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Probably makes it sound wishy washy - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Trusted by the community" is too vague, and is unmeasurable to be represented fairly. Requesting should have no restrictions - it is up to the community. There should, however, be guidelines - and that's it, only guidelines. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You understand, of course, that except for the last line, those are the guidelines currently listed on the WN:A page -- I'm simply asking that users be required to have been active for at least 30 days before being created... That's the only thing different about what we have now. If you don't like the current guidelines, please change them or propose a change. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There should, however, be guidelines - and that's it, only guidelines." --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Requesting should have no restrictions apart from being active for 30 days, the guidelines are about setting mutual expectations, so the probably should remain. StrangerInParadise 01:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the only change I'm proposing to existing guidelines are to add the last line, "Users requesting adminship must be active members of the community for 30 days prior to their creation." If you are opposed to the current guidlines as they are listed, please consider doing as I have done and attempt to make a change. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused into thinking that you were proposing dropping the Probably. Changed to support, etc. Thanks for setting me straight. StrangerInParadise 03:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a broader note, why did we have to immediately begin "Opposing" and "Supporting"? Why can't we just discuss it? --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Forced to oppose as inaccurate. I don't care really, nor do I feel "trusted by the community" is vague. But I must observe that Jimbo and/or the board are free to veto adminship even if your trusted by the community, as only they are trusted by the donors. So I think the change would simply be inaccurate. OTOH, wiki-lawyer-ing is stupid & accuracy may not be the most important issue. Nyarlathotep 02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not proposing anything new other than requiring users to be active 30 days -- if you object to the existing guidelines as they are written, let's talk about. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I stupidly miss-read the above conversation. I have no objection to a 30 day requirement, but my striken comment can be taken as an objection to the removal of the word probably. Nyarlathotep 02:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I probably shouldn't have said "propose" in my explanation -- it's probably confusing people who don't get to the "but"... :D --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the real problem is people who just read Bawolf's post to figure out what its all about. Nyarlathotep 02:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which post is that? Perhaps I'm missing something. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 02:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means the post on WN:A... ? irid:t 02:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I was much more mindless than that, and I meant Cartman02au, not Bawolf. Okay, I'm going to shut up now, my mind is not in internet gear tonight. Nyarlathotep 02:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You had company in your confusion. I say it's all Chiacomo's fault! =) StrangerInParadise 03:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the blame! I tried to clarify above. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm saddened that we need to add a "rule" about adminship pre-requisites. Adminship should be no big thing, and if someone doesn't meet your ideal you should be free to oppose their adminship for that with no hard feelings. Likewise, an admin should be approved on their merits as perceived by the community, and if approved by the community there should be no bad feelings that they didn't meet your ideals at the time.

Just my fraction of a monetary unit, but it seems like instruction creep. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 04:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --vonbergm 05:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. The current guidelines are fine. Frankie Roberto 22:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox proposal

At present there exists no formal process to deal with userboxes on Wikinews. Userboxes have been causing a stir on our sister project, Wikipedia in addition to here where the ArbCom has been involved. I propose that we, as a community develop a userbox policy that is clear so that everyone knows where they stand on the issue.

I will make three proposals:

Userboxes are disallowed

We disallow userboxes completely. Userboxes may be deleted under WN:SD.

Userboxes are limited

We allow userboxes on userpages which express a user's experience, language preferences, etc but DO NOT allow userboxes which show a user's point-of-view on certain issues.

Userboxes may express personal views

Users may create userboxes to express personal views, experience, etc on their userpage. Userboxes which are deemed offensive may be deleted on sight by administrators in accordance with WN:SD. Other userboxes may be deleted if they fall under WN:DR

I will also make an additional proposal which will only apply for the last two. That userboxes are only allowed in their own namespace to find a user with a certain userbox you would use what links here and must not encroach on other areas of the site, that is userboxes should not appear in Template: or Category: Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support userboxes for skills, langauge, etc., as I support barnstars & user's uploading of images. Its best to keep language & skill identifications as similar to wikipedia as possible, as we get lots of users from wikipedia. I remain unsure about POV userboxes myself. However, I'm willing to settle on one concrete proposal: vote on future deletions in WN:DR. No more mass speedy deletes, just ordinary delete votes with people chatting about it. You may list multiple templates, as I've recently done for the undeletion of babel. Nyarlathotep 23:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User-boxes were never allowed to be deleted speedily, with exception to extreme cases. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is right. WikiNews 00:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes are controlled by whitelists

we create a new page called Wikinews:Userbox creation requests (WN:UCR or WN:UBCR)
Any userbox or class of userboxes that someone wants has to be requested their. You can request any single or class of multiple user-boxes.
Userboxes may use a category thats a subcategory of user (e.g. Category:user/Doctor or Category:user/Deletionist.) OR if it overlaps with an exsisting Category:Intreasted in Science and technology or Category:Live in Asia style category, it may use thoose. It may not use any other categories.
Userboxes can be transcluded in the standard ({{blah}}) way. Note this point is debatable at WN:UBCR (as in extra provissions could be agreed on there (e.g. subst: ). It shall be in the following ns:
1. a subpage of the page template:users (e.g. template:users/blah) similiar to how template:issues works.
2. a new ns (e.g. comunity:) especially for userboxes and other comunity things like Regional discussions and such. (transcluded via {{community:Doctor}})

This may be a little instruction creepy, so feel free to amend it. Bawolff ☺☻ 00: 31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It is instruction creepy, but no more than anyone else's proposal, including my own. :) I'm currently feeling the, just vote on all of them at WN:DR vibe (listing categories should be okay), but my mind has changed many times on this issue. Your proposal isn't soo diffrent really, it just means creation, instead of deletion, is the contentious issue. Not sure what is best. Nyarlathotep 00:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this method (although my mind is still wandering to which is best) because userboxes are not directly related to our goal, and they explode into popularity very fast. I think on this issue its better to be pro-active then reactive. (We could also keep track of which exsist easier) Bawolff ☺☻ 00:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point, interesting. Nyarlathotep 00:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea for the reason that we are being pro-active. What I think is going to be difficult is checking the userboxes against the whitelist (unless there is a technical way to limit their creation) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By making it a part of the policy any not approved userbox can be deleted on sight we will keep the number of unapproved userbox down. We have a similar delete on sight policy for untagged images that does a fairly good job --Cspurrier 15:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually the image thing isn't going to well, Category:Image issues. But I think userboxes will work alot better then images as far as keeping them under control. All new pages are in special:newpages so if someone creates one it will be easy to see. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be better if we merged it with Amgines proposal. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The administration of this system is still of concern to me. We need an approval process, a deletion process and then people to enforce both - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes are controlled no differently from other talk page content, four new namespaces are created

(proposal cloned slightly from similar comments re Wikipedia)

In principle, one should be able to lift Main, Help, Category and Template and get a complete NPOV news archive out of it. Because of the ways in which categories and templates are currently used on Wikipedia, this would not be the case today. I think we agree that this is a fundamental problem which compromises the product. This is a simple matter to correct technically by creating four new namespaces— User template, User category, User template talk, User category talk— and asking people to migrate as necessary. Few will fight to keep POV items like userboxes and usercategories in the news namespaces. Note that this namespace would contain other userpagey semiotics like Wikipedia Stress Meter, Currently on Wikibreak, Talk page conventions, Babel, etc.

This proposal bypasses all the headache and instruction creep for deciding what to delete next in over 98% of cases, the rest can be decided with existing policies. There would be zero need to block What links here, though there is a need (regardless of what we or Wikipedia do) to have a process for making decisions which is not stackable.

StrangerInParadise 01:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this proposal too because it addresses what I see is the problem - the fact that userboxes encroach on other areas of the site. - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with parts. User category: namespace is superflourus when we could just use category:User/blah. User template: I like but I'd call it something like comunity: . Seccond point: I'd actually prefer to use Amgine's system though, as it uses less server resources and does the smae thing (Only lost fuctionality is it doesn't work with DPL's). Comunity: namespace thing could fit into that. Babel, and other userboxes rarely change and should be subst: , but the strees meter and others might be better as a template so you could change the level easily. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the rationale behind namespace User category is that Category should not contain userpages. If you lift Main, Help, Category and Template, you should get a complete NPOV news archive out of it. I kinda like the Community namespace name, but think that User, User category and User Template all suggest a common mode of governance, along with all Talk pages. What's a DPL- dynamic page layout? Also, Amgine's system is not a solution, not even close. It also bears the assumption that userboxes must have an approved use on a case-by-case basis. My proposal is a system, an open one which does not require prior approvals, leverages categories, and keeps the news namespaces clean. StrangerInParadise 01:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this proposal mainly because it directly addresses my concerns and requires little change in policy. Userboxes are used on User pages. User pages must comply with policy, but are slightly freer than the rest of the site. Userboxes should therefore be seen as a user page, as such they should only be deleted if there is reason to do so. I can see the idea of a white-list for userboxes becoming a nightmare to administer - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

(This is for comments not directly related to the above proposals but to the creation of a userbox policy itself)

I will admit that I support having userboxes on the site and that we need to develop a policy for dealing with them but I do not know the best way of doing so, my proposals were simply thrown out there to get some ideas going - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start. StrangerInParadise 01:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donations to Wikimedia make the whole thing go. How userboxes enter into that equation, I do not know. But the ramifications should be taken into consideration. It takes money to host userboxes. -Edbrown05 02:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I can imagine one heck of a usetbox policy proposal which tries to force users to pay for the hosting of their user pages. Its not a good idea, but it would be absolutely hilarious to propose it on wikipedia as a joke. :) Nyarlathotep 02:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, without knowing for a fact, that Wikimedia donations come largely from persons who are participants in the project, rather than consumers of the output. This is sheer speculation, but if true, then users are paying for the hosting service. -Edbrown05 03:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The impact of userboxes and userpages on resource is negligible. This is a typical scare-tactic, Ed, don't let'em fool ya. Good point, BTW.StrangerInParadise 21:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/Archive/13

Contents