User talk:StrangerInParadise

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi StrangerInParadise, welcome to Wikinews... Sorry about that, I should have left a message on the talk page in addition to de-publishing the article. It's a great article, but the sources need to be formated using the {{source}} template before it can be published. I think Chicamo is doing it now.... - Borofkin 03:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

StrangerInParadise, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay! If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account.

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

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

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Chiacomo (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No problem[edit]

Glad I could help with the article. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

Wikinews desperately needs more gutsy reporters; please give the project as much time as you can spare. Neutralizer 03:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The connection is the paradox[edit]

Both events are under the same hands of control(US federal government) and both stories have to do with illegal drugs.The paradox of how seriously we deal with a minor drug(cannibus) compared to how cavalierly we are dealing with a surging opium empire(e.g. we don't spray the poppies in Afghanistan at all) is worthy of story inclusion,imo. But, since most,like yourself, would likely have a different opinion, then a "related story" designation might be reasonable, at least I thought so.
Similar to when reporting congressman John Murtha's view that the US should get out of Iraq, it is always mentioned that he is a decorated Vietnam war hero[1]...the paradox is part of the story, imo. It's our preconceived notion (that our country,the USA, is anti-drugs) which inhibits our ability to see the paradox, but once we see it, it's newsworthy, imo. The paradox shows, to me, that perhaps our country is not anti-drug, but rather selectively controlling types and methods of drug distribution and profiteering. Nobody can make money off of a legal weed and a whole lot of profits made from headache pills, sleeping pills and anti-depressants would evaporate; Opium is a great way to generate black bag money and finance bad guys who are useful for a variety of geo-political purposes; am I making any sense here? Neutralizer 02:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I see what you are saying. This is under county control, with dark state and federal fingerprints all over it. My concern is only that the irony would be lost on too many people, and it would appear as one drug thing among many, as opposed to an international human rights story. They are crossing a new line here.

In this connection, could you help me with something: I am trying to get placement on Wikipedia's Main Page In the news section, but not getting traction. It is my sincere editorial opnion that this qualifies. Any thoughts? I understand you may not be a Wikipedia admin- or are you? StrangerInParadise 05:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you are likely correct about the irony being lost; I am often misinterpreted(I blame it mostly on my bad communication skills).
Eloquence will help you I'm sure; he is an admin. here and at Wikipedia as well,I believe. Neutralizer 12:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Kubby articles[edit]

Please create new articles for new information -- but do reference previous wikinews stories... --Chiacomo (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It seemed like an update, and I was wondering about at what point changing the date would not be an option. I understand the issue, but I thought adding a new article for so small a change would be spamming the channel. I intend to add a new article once the arraignment is concluded. At what point do articles get locked from editing and pass into the historic record. StrangerInParadise 18:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

When publishing, it's best to state what was known when the article was published. Don't worry about short articles -- you can always add some background from previous articles. --Chiacomo (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done that, right? StrangerInParadise 18:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

As Chiacomo has hinted at, please look towards creating another story on the Kubby issue. This has had a date bump once, and that is generally only done for an article that has been in develop for several days. I do not believe you should adding material that occurred after publication to an existing article such as this one, it is researched and substantial. Yes, this may mean you need to wait until there is sufficient material for a new article, but you are pushing the POV of this article by repeately expanding on Kubby's medical condition. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've had access to newswire services over the years, so I know that they do just as I have done- update and datebump. That said, I understand this cannot be too plastic, which is why I have asked for guidance. How, exactly, does it "push POV", to expand on his condition as details come in. If you look at the transscript, you will see the extent of my restraint. I am waiting for the next point to add an article. As I have said, I wanted to avoid a series of small articles. I believe what I have done to be correct, please advise if you disagree with what I have just said. Also, is there a point where articles become locked? StrangerInParadise 20:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I would rather not go into this in great detail, you got into the sort of dispute I suspected would arise out of this. Continually expanding information on the patient's condition is an appeal for sympathy to your audience. That is appealling to a POV. The article in question should be left as-is and linked to in a "Related news" section in new articles. Please remember this is not Wikipedia. Articles are eligble for protection as soon as they are 14 days from date of publication. Edits should stop long before that. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Notice of Temporary Block[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily for your actions on the following page: Steve Kubby, co-author of California Proposition 215, grows dangerously ill in US custody. Your block will be up within 24 hours. I suggest you look at our style guide during your inaccessable period to amend your methods of editing Wikinews. If you wish to speak with me directly, contact can be made by my talk page or contact can be made instantly via the IRC chat room.
--MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It does not appear that this user is still blocked. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

This is beside the point, isn't it? StrangerInParadise 23:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a defined method for petitioning the arbitration committee -- please see Wikinews:Dispute resolution. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am looking into this, StrangerInParadise. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Stranger claims 3RR was misapplied[edit]

List of reverts by StrangerInParadise in article Steve Kubby, co-author of California Proposition 215, grows dangerously ill in US custody in a 24-hour period 21:52 30 January to 21:53 31 January (the definition from 3RR policy):
Each of these edits consisted of reverting other contributor's edits to this article. Two of these were removal article flags without consensus to do so. Three of these were removal of a single unsourced statement. A total of 6 reverts within a 24 hour period.
The user should have been warned on the user's talk page of inappropriate behaviour, and possible 3RR violation. However, this does not negate the fact the user was in violation of the policy.
User was blocked appropriately, for a minimal period of time, which has expired. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The statement was sourced, in fact multiply sourced! I explained this in the reversion, so why was the 3RR counter started? It was I who was reverted three times by Mrmiscellanious. Once more, and he would have been in violation. This is somewhat beside the point, as Mrmiscellanious used his admin powers to exert editorial influence on the article, rather than recuse himself. Perhaps I should have asked protection, but when BrianMc and Chiacomo raised the issue and proposed a freeze on edits, I complied and engaged in discussion, but Mrmiscellanious and BrianMc kept editing and chopped things up. This is unpardonable, I want the article reverted to my last, then we discuss. StrangerInParadise 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain how any source can verify the following factual statements:
  • Mr. Kubby is currently shivering
  • The cell is "cold"
  • "his fears are now being realized"
The statements are all subjective, or unverifiable. You could ascribe them, as "So and so says he's shivering in a cold cell, his fears now being realized," or "he's shivering in a cold cell, his fears now being realized, reports Such and Such." Or you could avoid the hyperbole and focus on the facts. - Amgine | talk en.WN 00:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is not hyperbole. His circumstances were related to no less than three separate people, whose transcripts are cited in the article (unless the others removed them, in addition to the other details and punctuation).
The shivering is a direct result of his medical condition, confirmed by his wife and several doctors. Any doctor could confirm the results of an adrenaline spike. BTW, the jail will not admit his doctor, nor comment on the findings of their doctor.
As to his fears, they are a staple of his testimony before various official fora and the press goign back years. He is in solitary confinement in prison, did you want something like if, as he claims (assuming the three separate people to whom he claimed it are telling the truth), he is in fact shivering, then (only hypothetically, of course) he must be comtemplating the realization of these fears (if, in fact, he ever sincerely held them in the first place). Get real, please. Did anyone but me read any of the sources and background material? No professional journalist would engage in such absurd hair-splitting. StrangerInParadise 00:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have. There are exactly two places in the sources where it mentions shivering. One is a transcript of a phone call on Indymedia in which the recorder is not named, and Mr Kubby says he is mistreated by deputies who will not provide him with a blanket. The other is an ascribed quote in the San Francisco Chronicle. His "worst fears" are not specifically mentioned in any of the sources. This is not absurd hair splitting; Wikinews differs from "professional journalists" in that we require our factual statements to be sourced, and we report from a neutral point of view. Perhaps Wikinews is not an appropriate venue for the article you wish to produce since we have these requirements. - Amgine | talk en.WN 00:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
His "worst fears" are not specifically mentioned in any of the sources?! They are in virtually every single source, it is the core of the story. Are you suggesting he had a worse fear than being locking in a cage without meds and left to die an agonizing death, leaving a bereaved family? There were more than two references, BTW.
The transcriber is noted in the transcripts. In one case it is Pat McCartney, with whom he is speaking (re Placer County Jail), in another it is Dale Gieringer, with whom he is speaking (re Redwood City/San Mateo County Jail). There are more which I did not use. The question for you is: why didn't some one ask me rather than hack up the article, leaving me to defend reverting it?
And BTW, please don't lecture me about NPOV, when no one has yet to demonstrate that I have ever violated it, and when admins blatently use their sysop powers to influence the editorial content of the article. I am a very experienced Wikipedian, and a skilled arbiter and advocate long before that. Wikinews has a long way to go to demonstrate either its neutrality or its institutional maturity. StrangerInParadise 01:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It is one of my duties, as an admin on Wikinews, to discuss NPOV. I understand you are likewise facing censure on Wikipedia regarding NPOV issues and articles related to Mr. Kubby. I pointed out above where you were in violation of NPOV. I am clearly not a skilled arbiter or advocate or you would have understood this to be the case.
  • according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.
  • assert facts, including facts about opinions--but don't assert opinions themselves.
  • Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone.
  • It's generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. (It's often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.)
  • Those who constantly attempt to advocate their views on politically charged topics (for example), who seem not to care about whether other points of view are represented fairly, are violating the non-bias policy ("write unbiasedly").
  • When any dispute arises as to what the article "should" say or what is "true," we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?"
  1. It appears to me, in my position as an admin, that your preferred revision of this article violates at least the above elements of the Wikinews neutral point of view policy. For this reason I would be opposed to reverting to your preferred revision.
  2. MrMiscellanious acted within policy in blocking you for 3RR violation. If you have an ongoing dispute with this user I suggest you examine the Wikinews:Dispute resolution. I believe the first suggested action of this resolution process is to disengage.
  3. The ArbCom is the last stage of a dispute resolution process, yet you appear to be oriented toward it first. This would indicate to me you do not have an interest in resolving any dispute you might have. I cannot guess what the ArbCom might decide to do should you make an RfAr, but I would guess they will look at your efforts to resolve your dispute at other levels first. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course you are so obliged to discuss NPOV, but even now you have yet to show that I have violated it. My version (thank you for looking at it) is consistent with each point above. Each point. Moreover, the opportunity to demonstrate this was denied by MrM's wrongful actions, so even if you disagree, the correct thing is to revert, then discuss. BTW, no one has even fixed the puctuation. Nor have you carried your earlier assertions that my worst fears comment was somehow unsourced, either in fact or per common sense.
I beg to differ, MrMiscellanious did not act within policy,
  • He acted to block on an article in which he was engaged editorially. This is fundementally a violation, and the only reason I would see him stripped. Admins are not editors with special privileges. I find it disturbing you have not acknowledged this.
  • The 3RR policy is not as simple as "four reverts of any kind in 24 hrs". For example, you altered the statement re extradition just now. Although you were incorrect in your edit comment (Kubby was in the custody of his attorney, an officer of the court, under a removal order to the US per an extradition request, i.e. he was extradited; I can further explain the complexities of it, but it is beside the point), I had no objection to the edit (it was quite neutral, and well-phrased). Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that your edit was problematic, and I revert with explanation which you accept. Let's assume further that some other trivial fact is twice added (wrong date asserted, adding a second l in Michele), and I revert with sourced explanation which is accepted. Am I now barred until the morrow from making factual corrections? This is not 3RR. I should not be in the position of choosing to admit small errors for fear of later being unable to fix big ones.
  • The ambiguities of the last point are why such warnings are required, not mearly an option. No warning was given.
  • In doing so, MrM, Brianmc and others violated the consensus moritorium on edits, though I was barred specifically for enforcing it (and barred before I could explain the reversals).
I intend to follow the intermediate steps. At this point, I feel uncertain that I can edit the article at all because of the poor process used in this matter. This climate of apprehension precludes disengagement, unless I am now just to give up and leave.
StrangerInParadise 02:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to following the progress of your dispute resolution. I would like to quote the 3RR policy as it is written on Wikinews, which may differ somewhat from the formulation on Wikipedia:

Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.

(This doesn't apply to self-reverts or correcting simple vandalism.) - Amgine | talk en.WN 03:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:3RR,

Administrator involvement

Except in cases of spam and vandalism, an administrator should not block users for 3RR if they themselves have consecutively reverted that user's edits two times or more within the last 24 hours on that page. Instead, administrators in this situation should make a request at the administrators' noticeboard if they believe 3RR has been broken.

...so, what does it mean here at Wikinews, that admins can start edit wars, then punish any who resist?
Glad you are looking forward to the process, now, I'd like to revert the article per the above, and initiate proper discussion on where to go from there. BTW, where does one initiate RfDA?
StrangerInParadise 06:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus to remove an article flag?[edit]

BTW, where do I need consensus to remove an article flag, and how is it the tone issue was raised and discussed only in fora from which I was blocked? StrangerInParadise 00:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus to remove an article flag is usually requested on the article's discussion page, after addressing the issues raised there. You could also contact the tagging editor directly. - Amgine | talk en.WN 00:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Every single deletion of material, and the two flags placed on the article, were entirely unjustified. Most of it was done after I had been effectively gagged. How can any of you in clear conscience engage in this behavior, and call it consensus. You might ask yourselves why you would put such a flag on a published article (wrongly undermining its credibility), rather than on its discussion page. StrangerInParadise 00:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Stranger, there are plenty of reasons to remove a flag without what many call consensus, but you don't understand any of them yet. So let me make this simple. If you want to remove a flag, here are three routes to go:

  1. Slow/Zen approach: Try to address the issue, say so on the talk page, and wait a few hours. In those several hours, another user may examine your corrections, maybe improve them, maybe remove the tag, or maybe provide more explination. In this time, you should also forget the issue and distance yourself from it emotionally. After that, you may look at the critisisms afresh, make more changes, and remove the tag. You may still be wrong about having fixed the problems, but, if you've made significant progress, people won't mind retagging and giving a more detailed explination.
  2. Speedy approach: After making your changes, just log into IRC and ask someone like Amgine for help.
  3. Intermediate approach: After making your changes, leave a note on the talk page of the tagging user.

I personally prefer the Zen appraoch, as I rarely think my articles need to get published quickly, but lots of people want life to move it along, and your one of them if your getting into trouble for removing tags. POV issues can be handled by word choice 95% of the time. It'll be better for you if you can be the one improving the word choice. Nyarlathotep 23:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There are several reasons why this Wiki cannot in any rational sense be considered to be operating per Foundation traditions and guidelines, and you apparently don't understand any of them yet,
  1. Editorial and admin functions routinely confused
  2. Admins using sysop powers to prevail in editorial conflicts
  3. Admins confusing NPOV with personal POV
  4. Admins routinely ignoring policy when it suits them
  5. Admins choosing to follow or ignore Wikinews policy over Wikipedia policy when it suits them
  6. Editors routinely making deletions citing unsourced when sources are delared
  7. Certain contributors enjoy privilege well beyond either the normal deference to experience or adherence to rules
I appreciate your explanations, which I find reasonable- except of course your presumption that I didn't know that from day one. The fact remains that many here simply do not do as you say. I had been taken to task officially for removing a cleanup flag without consensus (hence my question, where is the policy?), but the cleanup flag had been placed saying, "boarderline language, need experienced newswriter to look at.", by an anonymous user. I am fairly certain that in this case, with a published, highly time-sensitive article, most would give their work a once-over, remove it, and move on (not knowing anyway who would meet the anonymous user's criteria of experienced).
Also, the question I raise here is a separate one (which you didn't address, not that you were obliged to): if a clean-up flag is needed, should the article be published, or if an article needs clean-up but should remain published, should it go on the article page or the talk page?

You can also try emailing another admin if your having a personality conflict with one. Nyarlathotep 07:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, in my own mind, I have a policy of being willing to revert blocks & protects by "editorially involved" admins. I might also ask a third admin to consider reinstating the block if I feel it has some chance of being justified. In your particular case, I do think some of your langauge was POV, but the material was itself fine (sourced, etc.).
BTW, IMHO, your best strategy for pushing the Kubby issue would have been to write up all the other related stories as seperate cross-linked articles, ideally just long enough to not be briefs, but even briefs are fine. I'm sure there were about five articles here, enough to get one every couple days for two weeks, much much better coverage, especially for RSS users. And much better for wikinews as it runs up our article count, leaves users fealing like they read complete articles (which were shorter), while probably seducing them into reading more wikinews material.
Oh, I've never completely understood the cleanup flag myself, but its widespread use represents a significant improvment over our past system, so I've been quite happy to see it around the site. Nyarlathotep 17:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

More Kubby News[edit]

The above stories could serve as the basis for a new Kubby article... --Chiacomo (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but what assurances do I have that once I write them, admins will not come along and chop them up. Please read the above. I had always intended to carry on into a series of new articles, and had initiated discussions on how to do so, so as to address concerns about updating. Look at what happened! I need the other admins here to take what happened to me a bit more seriously.
  • I want to begin a RfDA action against MrM.
  • I want the damage done by brianmc to be reversed.
  • Rather than saying NPOV and unsourced without either explanation or justification, I want people to defend these claims.
StrangerInParadise 17:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

RfDA[edit]

You may make a RfDA at [5] which is part of [6] however, it will be a complete waste of time; guaranteed. MrM has had several RfDAs filed and none have ever even come close to succeeding. Since you are new here you may not know that we just spent a lot of time and energy developing our Arbcom procedures which is the path the community has chosen to use rather than RfDAs and de-editing votes. Dispute resolution is a required step in the Arbcom process so that is where you should begin, I think. Neutralizer 18:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. MrM started an edit war, then used his admin powers within a minute to punish me when I resisted. I respect the process the community has chosen, however, this goes straight to RfDA, do not pass Go- this user should not be an admin. The damage has been done. Frankly, I am not suprised he has been the subject of such an action before, and will be interested to review past instances. Please consider the consequences of admins using their powers to exercise editorial control. I will ask for your support in this, how could you condone his actions? StrangerInParadise 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question; there are a lot of really good and experienced editors and admins. here whose judgement I value that have decided in similar cases that an RfDA would be completely unwarranted. Also, this community has,apparently, decided that the process of cooperation ,negotiation and peacefulness will in the long run be more constructive than adversarial,confrontative methods of handling all contributors (including admins). Had they not been dedicated to this approach, I would have lost my editing priviledges months ago as I used to be very,very difficult to work with. You must remember that it has not been only MrM who has had some problems with the Kubby article, so, maybe that's worth thinking about a bit? Anyway, our dispute resolution process has been quite successful from what I can tell so, that's what I suggest. Neutralizer 19:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Similar cases? Do tell! Are you really telling me that there are several instances of admins starting edit wars, then using there powers to punish those that resist? Bear in mind, I'm not taking exception to people having "some problems with the Kubby article" (tedious though that may be at times), this is about a specific abuse of admin powers. I am all about the peaceful resolution, but here a line has been crossed, don't you think? StrangerInParadise 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but around here the "lines" are elastic, which I've come to believe is a good thing. Neutralizer 19:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I am all about the peace, love and consensus, but none of this elasticity was in evidence when I was banned. Do you believe that these lines should stretch to allowing admins to start an edit war, then use admin powers to punish those who resist. I am not letting you or anyone else here off the hook on this point- yes or no? =) StrangerInParadise 19:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
maybe:) thing is, nobody's got control over the other person, only one anyone can control is themselves; their own actions and reactions. I've just come to the point I'm gonna try peace and brotherhood and "turn the other cheek" for the next 10 years or so; I claim to be a Christian so I'm gonna start trying to do what He told me to do for a change. MrM ain't heavy; he's my brother.Neutralizer 21:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That is admirable, but in my brief experience here, admins have control over non-admins, and at least one has demonstrated a propensity to abuse it. Your brother is too heavy when he is sitting on my head. Sorry, maybe doesn't cut it, yes or no? =) StrangerInParadise 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Come on; you're too strong to be held back aren't you? Just write another story; and another; and another and maybe a song or two and get Willie Nelson to record them for this poor man who could well be a great symbol of a society in dire need of an ethics overhaul,spirit resurrection and a collective brain enema. Start a demonstration out in front of his jail, raise hell,get arrested, if it's as desperate a situation as you say; you're wasting your time talking to me and MrM.; if this man really needs some cannabis; then YOU make sure he gets it. Neutralizer 00:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about cannabis, this is about abuse of admin power. An admin used sysop powers to gain editorial control of an article. Don't dodge the question, has the line been crossed, yes or no? StrangerInParadise 04:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
That's your question; and in a free society ,I don't have to answer it; now do I? yes or no? :) Neutralizer 15:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
But my answer is; abuse of authority is in the eye of the beholder and I don't think this amount(if there is any) is a big deal. Neutralizer 16:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

Hi. We usually don't delete redirects as doing so would break links from external sites. So I've restored them. --Deprifry|+T+ 10:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not being published doesn't prevent people from linking in, does it? Also those redirects aren't hurting anybody and there's no real reason to delete them. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
If you're refering to bad or unpublished articles being kept, I would disagree. Keeping these would clutter the developing stories section, influence the article count and possibly damage the credibility of Wikinews. I could also get formalistic with you and point you to the speedy deletion guidelines which don't allow deletion in this case. --Deprifry|+T+ 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
There's a reason those guidelines distinguish between "articles" and "redirects". And therefore there is simply no basis in policy for deleting these pages. --Deprifry|+T+ 19:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
"Please think" --> Thanks for reminding me to do that, I almost forgot. Again, those are two different sets of guidelines. One applies to "articles", the other one to "redirects". Combining them just won't work. Just like you can't combine the definition of theft with the minimal sentence of murder even though they appear in the same criminal code. I'm not sure if there are external links. Might be in a private mail discussing the development of the article, might be in a cannabis forum mocking the ignorance of Wikinews. But if there are, keeping the redirects ensures that people get to the story. --Deprifry|+T+ 20:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou[edit]

I really appreciate the assistance you have given on the anti-cannabis laws in NSW. I had prior to writing the article been one of those who believe that cannabis is a bad thing (hell we are told this forever in school, etc) but after looking at what I take legally (high dosage Zoloft) and what I am meant to take (benzos) I cant see it being more dangerous, hell the medication I used to be on (Aropax) did me a hell of alot of harm.

The assistance you have given has been valuable and at the same time has opened my eyes - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

How neutral?[edit]

Interesting that you dug up one of my attempts at mediation, and I'm glad you seem to - on the whole - agree with it. Sure, the BBC leave things out, but that is dependent on your viewpoint about any particular story. Can you strike that comment from the article page and move it to my talk page to continue the discussion there? Copy my original comment if you think I'm going to be reminded of being more reasonable, there's a {{quote}} template for that.

Incidentally, I'd prefer if you assume good faith on the edits I carried out on the Kubby article. I was aiming to ensure it was kept when, from experience, I've seen articles like that with a "champion" end up deleted. Wikinews is fundamentally different from Wikipedia because of time constraints. Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news. And news, recorded with an eye to being a historical record, shouldn't be laden down over days with facts that belong in an encyclopedia. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The NSW Cannabis article[edit]

Please note the article is marked in-use. A major edit is underway. See talk page. - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What I have removed is not related to the news event of the announcement of a review of current NSW cautioning system and proposed legislation for NSW cannabis laws. It is background information, which at that point was larger than the coverage of the news event. Wikinews is not an encyclopedia; complete and extensive background is not required - we are not here to argue the possible pros or cons of marijuana use or laws, but to report about news events. - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have 9 minutes left to work on this article. I have been asked by two contributors to examine this article. In my position as a contributor I note this article was in violation of the WN:NOT guidelines. A medical practitioner speaking for the government is a news event; wikinews rebutting that argument is not. Good day. - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits on the article, because many of the statments were made in a POV manner without basis. Please discontinue this method of editing Wikinews, for it is in violation of our policies and guidelines. Further violations will result in blocks. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Create a user page?[edit]

Hello Stranger,

if you plan to stick around, how about creating User:StrangerInParadise and telling us a little about yourself, your motivation, etc.? User pages help to build trust in the community. Cheers,--Eloquence 20:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning[edit]

You have re-inserted material into the NSW article 7 times within 24 hours. Please be aware that Wikinews has and enforces a 3RR policy. - Amgine | talk en.WN 21:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

POV[edit]

I am not here to debate you. The edits were POV, and you just ignored my statements completely; the sources were included when you made your edits, that means I was only removing the sources of your edits, not of any other edits of the article. You will be blocked for a 3RR if you continue this up. THE EDITS ARE NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE NPOV POLICY. STOP REVERTING EDITS THAT ARE NOT VANDALISM. WE WILL NOT CURB ANY POLICIES FOR YOU, YOU ARE TO FOLLOW THEM COMPLETELY. Now, this article will be reverted to Amgine's last version, which is much more neutral than your latest edits. If you continue to include the material, you will be blocked. Consider this your FINAL WARNING. If you do not wish to follow these rules, I suggest you take a look at Indymedia instead. They allow anything. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

  • And you may not be aware, but if there is basis for a block that is supported by policy, it does not matter who performs the block. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I have much better things to do than to respond to your messages, so from now on you are ignored. Your violation of the 3RR policy on the new article has been noted, and will be used for a future block. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


Notice of Temporary Block[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily for your actions on the following page: New South Wales set to adopt harsher anti-cannabis laws. Your block will be up within 4 days. I suggest you look at our style guide during your inaccessable period to amend your methods of editing Wikinews. If you wish to speak with me directly, contact can be made by my talk page or contact can be made instantly via the IRC chat room.
--MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts[edit]

The above seem to be the reverts that triggered the 3RR block. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

12 hours[edit]

user:Brianmc reduced your block to twelve hours. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There are only three reverts, and these technically do not apply[edit]

Amgine claims seven. Chiacomo counts four. There are really only three, and these, technically, should not count.

  • If you look at the log, you see Amgine add the {{inuse}} flag in the middle of a series of my edits. This is his first edit to the article, which cartman and I have been working on for days. Well, he did wait an entire three minutes after my last edit to do so, perhaps asking me first was not to be expected. Could he be trying to block me from editing the article? Apparently so, he commits explicitly over top of my subsequent edits with the comment, first pass, over-writing edit conflict, that is to say, he reverts me. I revert him back and invite him to reedit the new revision.
  • MrM comes along, reverts wholesale my subsequent edits, and threatens administrative action should I dare to resist, Revert back to last version by Amgine... many items are still NOT SOURCED and are POV STATMENTS. Continutation of inclusion of these items will result in a block. The term the more aware among you are groping for is reversion under color of authority. I explain I am unfamiliar both with his claim of authority to do so, and his specific objections and invite him to comment. He claims his will is so transcendent, he need not explain himself. I revert him back.
  • MrM returns, threatening even more dire consequences, reverts me. I consider cowering in fear, but think the better of it. After all, Wikinews is a rules governed community, surely there is nothing to fear. I revert him back. MrM blocks me for four days.

This set of edits do not constitute a reversion, they are clearly a compromise edit.

I assert that my last version of the article is consistent with nm:POV, nm:NOT and nm:Source, though neither Amgine nor MrM have deigned to explain why it is not. I leave it to the reader to ask whether either Amgine or MrM used administrative procedures to prevail in an editorial conflict.

Accusations of admin abuse[edit]

You have said several times that you feel that some admins are abusing their power. Could you explain your reasoning for that as I fail to see how it is an abuse of their power? (You can still edit your own talk page well blocked) Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 00:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, didn't know that. Never blocked in my many years at Wikipedia, just here. I'll comment at length in a moment. StrangerInParadise 00:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually MrM has failed to correctly enforce the 3RR policy - see WN:3RR#Enforcement - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Three points,

  • The block may not be used to prevail in an editorial conflict
  • Administrative powers may not be used to summarily adjudicate a POV question, especially one to which they are a party
  • The block is not required for 3RR, only an option should other measures fail

StrangerInParadise 01:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

On your third point, a block because of a 3RR is not an option but is applied to stop an edit war from happening (acording to WN:3RR). I personally don't like this rule because its always confusing whats a revert. but I believe thats fair, and in-line with policy. (still considering other points) Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is an option, you overlook that MrM was the instigator of the edit war. His role was to not revert, but seek dialog, and if necessary seek an uninvolved admin. My edit was not a revert, but a compromise edit allowed under the rules (in any Wiki other than Wikinews). Please see,

If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, admins may block you for up to 24 hours. (WN:3RR)

...and also see,

A revert is to undo all changes made after a certain time in the past. The result will be that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time. (Wikipedia:REVERT, cited in WN:3RR)

Several admins (including my current jailor Chiacomo) have argued that to reinsert any material following an edit is a revert. This is simply not policy. Of the reverts he lists here only three meet Wikipedia:REVERT.

You may be suprised to learn that, while I appreciate you proposals to change 3RR on my behalf, I think the current rules are good, but need to be enforced, especially WN:BP#When blocking may not be used.

StrangerInParadise 22:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


Your block has been reinstated for 48h, due to the fact that you have previously (not to mention, the past few days) been informed and blocked for 3RR violations. Keep in line with policies and you will not have these problems. Additionally, I find it striking that you find my warnings to be threats. If you wish not to recieve them, just say the word - and I'll get rid of all warnings in the future. Also, if you ever try to initiate a conflict just to get out of a block again, you will be reported to ArbCom. Just a heads up. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You can't be reported to the arbcom. You have to request arbitration, and the arbcom has to ratify your request.
I believe that MrM shouldn't have done actions that you believe led to point one and two, but that his actions were not intentionaly blocking to previel in an edit war and Administrative powers may not be used to summarily adjudicate a POV question, especially one to which they are a party. Lets all sit down and have some tea. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the concern. You are ignoring the message in MrM's very first revert "Revert back to last version by Amgine... many items are still NOT SOURCED and are POV STATMENTS. Continutation of inclusion of these items will result in a block."

NSW Cannabis article[edit]

Seeing as you can't write to my talk page (for being banned) I will answer your query over here.

I didnt ask Amgine to examine the article as I thought it was fine. the cleanups you did following publication seemed acceptabe to me. I fail to see why there should not be information on the studies conducted into the issue especially when the government is citing "mental health issues caused by cannabis use" as the reason behind the new laws. Should the public not be informed that this is without basis?

Seconmdly I appreciate your input into this issue, it has helped to have someone with an open mind help collaborate on the article - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Admin power in editorial matters is unlimited[edit]

<StrangerInParadi> Your very first revert, an editorial act, came with a threat of admin action
<MrMiscellanious> [deleted per request]
<MrMiscellanious> [deleted per request]
<StrangerInParadi> No, I did not
<MrMiscellanious> [deleted per request]
<StrangerInParadi> Ruling on POV?!
<MrMiscellanious> [deleted per request]
<MrMiscellanious> [deleted per request]
<MrMiscellanious> [deleted per request]
<StrangerInParadi> As an editor, you are entitled to say so, and work to resolution. You are not entitled to enforce unilaterally and use the block
<MrMiscellanious> [deleted per request]
<MrMiscellanious> [deleted per request]
<Edbrown05> [deleted pending approval]
<MrMiscellanious> [deleted per request]

...MrMiscellanious went on to kick me from the channel. Just previous to this, he extended my ban to 48hrs.

StrangerInParadise 03:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Let it also be known that I was not informed that there was logging of a conversation going on, nor do I approve of its usage on this page. The above transcript should therefore be deleted on grounds that I did not release my approval for its usage. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How many different kinds of gag does your bag-o-tricks come with? StrangerInParadise 03:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If I said something on IRC, I'd expect it to possibly be used against me. If I didn't want someone to use something I said against me I wouldn't say it. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 04:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't the above conversation in an open IRC chat room? If so anyone of us could have visited the room and seen it anyway. Alot of people log IRC and publish it later. If you dont want it published use email and state that it is not for redistribution. On the other hand, the log is of interest to other Wikinewsies - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 05:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Then expect a full log later today, as it seems as if this user does not care about other's wishes to keep their comments to themselves. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 11:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is against Freenode's policy to publish IRC logs. The above log should be removed -- and I will remove it if the user does not. --Chiacomo (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Two questions,
  • Where exactly is Freenode's policy written?
  • How exactly do you have the authority to enforce Freenode policy?
StrangerInParadise 17:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
A further statement - if that is Freenode's policy then the foundation is breaking it when it holds meetings on their network - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me rephrase, slightly. It is inappropriate to publish channel logs without permission of the users involved and is discouraged by freenode's policy. It is Wikimedia policy that logs not be published. It is announced in Wikimedia meetings (both in the channel and the topic) that the meeting is logged. As a channel operator, I have the authority to enforce freenode's and Wikinews IRC policies -- and to protetct the rights of the individuals who choose to use the #wikinews and #wikinews-en channels. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, it makes much more sense now - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, and thank you for answering my question. Now, consider that, in an official capacity, MrM offically requested I discuss the matter of my block with him on Freenode, the only way left to initiate communication. How is this not consent, or is there to be no record of his official dealings? In this wise, regrettably, EdBrown should be removed. Finally, I must reserve the right to publish MrM's comments in any hearing on his conduct. StrangerInParadise 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
This is why i don't care to conduct business over IRC... :D Talk pages are better 'cause they don't ever go away. I have, however, as I did with you, worked out an agreement on IRC and then posted a summary of that agreement on-wiki. IRC logs can be shared privately with other users (including mediators and arbiters) via email, etc. I reiterate that logs should not be published. I'm not going to have a fit -- I've calmed down, but please refrain from publishing logs in the future. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh. one last thing, the policy you cite says, "Please note that some of these have a policy that channel logs must not be published.", where is the one for #wikinews? StrangerInParadise 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
When one looks up into the channel list, there is a column titled "Logging"... #wikinews has a "No" in that column. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, done, StrangerInParadise 22:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Often discussions on IRC impact wikinews activities,behaviour and edits; if a history of those discussions is not available; aren't we circumventing a basic tenent of our format? Neutralizer 23:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

What impact has the IRC conversation between the two had? Perhaps the solution to this question of privacy and administrative accountability in IRC is to declare all discussion outside of publicly accessible forums inadequate for official dispute resolution, so in the case of IRC rooms with policy against logging may not be used for official dispute resolution in the future and this problem of lack of permission to publish party comments on official actions will be avoided. The effect being to strip all authority from responses made in those areas on basis of what was only discussed by those effectively external means. Perhaps for the conversation to have any merit for expanding sanction or for opposing sanction it must occur again and in a public forum to have any merit? For other matters, this should not apply, but for resolution it would seem essential that all interactions to be used for any support of exercise of official authority be available to all the community as the community is what gives the administrative power any significance. Opalus 23:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has said IRC logs are inadmissable in dispute resolution, it has been said they may not be made publically available. The section quoted was not, in my opinion, representative of what took place. At the point at which I quit IRC I did not believe StrangerInParadise had become any more receptive to mediation efforts or to advice aimed at making him a more effective contributor. There is a requirement to become part of the community here, you have to learn to look at an article or issue from the point of view of someone you disagree with. Try comparing Fox with Aljazeera on their coverage on the same story; both claim to neutrally represent the facts but add and subtract items that relate to the story to support a specific conclusion. Wikinews supports no conclusion, or all (reasonable) conclusions. The only acceptable venue for Stranger's version of both articles where there were disputes would be Indymedia which is not subject to a NPOV requirement.--Brian McNeil / talk 23:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Your presumption that my work is not neutral is, of course, disputed. It is your opinion, which should work itself out in editorial discussion. Thus far, you have held forth as I sit wrongly under block. The extent to which your comments on process are simply off will eventually come to light. I am already a highly-experienced contributor, though I hope to get better. I have worked under a tremendous handicap: a Wikimedia culture that does not follow the rules.
Your claim that the ICR passage above was not representative, is especially disputed. I did not claim that it was more than an excerpt, and many here will recognize just how representative of MrM's views it is. Finally, it is not I who rejected mediation, though I have had several instances of that here from others (not, though, from your good self). Granted, any community requires a degree of naturalization. The extent to which you have asserted the superiority of your view on my opinions and work is ever so gently patronizing. Please argue on the merits.
StrangerInParadise 00:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for item resolution[edit]

For the disputed information that you, StrangerInParadise, believe has a place in the article, because administrators are not the sole NPOV arbitrators, make an itemised list and place it here or on the article talk page with link to it located here on your talk page for expanded viewing. Based on that, each item could be individually resolved by any necessary outside parties as the particular and specific objections might be identified and resolved in a peaceable manner if appropriate, or in a forceful manner if warranted. By this means, isolating limited complaints, I believe that this event will be useful for future reference for what is required and what is not in articles on similar subjects. Opalus 04:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Tea[edit]

☻ Someone has poured you tea

I have unblocked the user[edit]

I have unblocked StrangerInParadise after reviewing the article history. I stand to be corrected, but I cannot find a solid 4th revert to a previous version. It appear that there was an edit conflict. All parties involved would have served the wiki better to discuss any dispute on the article talk page -- it takes two to tango. The user has agreed not to edit the article at all without reaching consensus on the article talk page. The user has also agreed not to become entangled in edit warring and disputes with other involved parties, but rather, to work through dispute resolution.

Before reblocking, it would be fair and wise to enumerate the original version (before reversion), and the 4 reverts on this page or WN:ALERT so that if, in fact, the user did violate the 3RR, it will be obvious to other admins. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have proposed a change to the 3RR blocking policy as a result of these events. - Borofkin 06:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I hate to reverse an admin -- myself especially, but... I've reviewed the article history and it DOES appear that identical material was reinserted a total of 4 times after being removed. I've posted a summary on the WN:ALERT page. The user has been blocked for 15 hours and 15 minutes -- 24 hours, roughly, from the last revert. WN:3RR says 24 hours and there is no provision for a longer block in current policy for a 3RR violation. --Chiacomo (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The user's block should have expired by this time. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Australian development you may be interested in[edit]

I was watching the news on television this morning and was quite interested in hearing about today's Council Of Australian Governments Meeting. Part of it may be of interest to you. Our PM is claiming (rightfully) that there is a mental health crisis in Australia. He is alleging that this is caused by cannabis and that the states should toughen up their weak laws. If they fail to do so they risk not getting extra mental health funding.

The claims RE: cannabis came out earlier in the week, yet I seemed to have missed it (as I hadn't been watching Sky News, which seems to report on both large and small stories).

I will write something on COAG later today, which will include this - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 23:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Everything on cited studies and stats would be most useful. I'm thinking of giving NORML-Australia a call for comment. If you happen to see something in the meanwhile, that would be most useful. Must find out what other pro-cannabis Australian organizations there are. This is a scary Anglo-tribe kind of thing. The Right in the US, Canada, UK, and Australia have been singing off the same song sheet lately, loudly, and (considering the actual science), off-key. The public has heard it so long, they have themselves become tone-deaf.
It is important, I think, to get past these false-POV issues, because a lot of stories are coming out like this.
StrangerInParadise 23:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

My bad[edit]

Apologies for republishing the NSW cannabis article, I misread your posting - I concur, and will update the cleanup flag accordingly. I thought you were happy with the proposal and as such would have accepted the changes. Sorry about that.

I have just noticed Borofkin's post suggesting we split it into two articles. I think this could be well worth considering. We could conduct it as a Wikinews exclusive and report form an investigative point-of-view. The best part is we aren't going to be constrained by time (which seems to be a problem by many) or accusations of interjecting POV into the aricle. What is your view on that? - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 04:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is my third invitation.[edit]

It appears to me that Wikinews does not meet your standards as an online community. We do not follow the guidelines you prefer, we do not agree with your interpretations of terms, we do not readily communicate in a manner you are easily able to understand or accept.

Because of the close and stressful nature of this community's mission, it is very difficult to work with people who do not accept the community's methods of interaction, and goals. I feel it would truly be in your best interests to find a community more able to be supportive of you and your interests. I invite you to look for this community.

- Amgine | talk en.WN 07:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You've been TEA'D![edit]

☻ Someone has poured you tea

New South Wales set to adopt harsher anti-cannabis laws[edit]

The event that this article reports on occurred 10 days ago. If this article can not be published extremely soon, i.e. this afternoon, then in my opinion it should be listed on Wikinews:Deletion requests. We report news, not history.

You have to think about what is the point of publishing so long after the event... it won't appear on the Main page, and it will appear so far down on the Aussie portal that it probably won't be noticed. What is the point of a brilliant and in-depth article if no-one reads it? - Borofkin 02:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Team friend :)[edit]

Yes! Lets make the conspiracy bigger, lets team up! International 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Peace[edit]

I, Brian New Zealand hereby ask for peace from now on (i.e. no more edit wars)

I apologise, wrong talk page :) (edit war message) Well at least you now have a nice image:) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed until now, but it is the first image brought to me, thank you! StrangerInParadise 01:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Irc logouts[edit]

Try using this when it won't let you back on /msg NickServ GHOST YOURUSERNAME <YOURPASSWORD>

Stop impersonating User:Deprifry[edit]

As seen in this edit, you have been impersonating User:Deprifry on a consensus-related poll. Do not remove or edit (in any way) other user's comments from anywhere on this wiki. Please refrain from doing so in the future, or you will be blocked. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, get real! StrangerInParadise 23:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
MrM has a point, and I believe you should take it to heart - despite the manner in which it was expressed. This is not the first time I've seen you edit the comments of other users, and in this case you undid a revert carried out by the user who had signed the comment. Your user page and this talk pages are the only ones on the wiki you can come close to claiming ownership over. Don't change signed comments elsewhere, even if you find someone's poor spelling offensive. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Brian, your point is very well-taken, and I can say only that I thought Int'l would not mind a supportive spell-edit. Clearly, I did not find his spelling offensive, I just did not want it to detract from his argument. Really, I can think of only one mispelling these days that I find truly annoying.
As to my revert, I was enforcing a formatting standard for the vote, which I thought my due as the person calling the vote. I'm letting somewhat lengthy comments slide, though I may have to move this Deprify-Stranger thread. This is practice on Wikipedia. However, through oversight on my part, I did inadvertently zap a reply (which reply I appreciated, actually), so I did not meet a standard of due care in doing so. I have apologized to Deprify, though MrM's assertion of impersonation remains (typically) beneath contempt. StrangerInParadise 00:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not feel that the change was an attempt to impersonate anybody. SIP didn't change the content of Deprify's post, just added formatting so that it appeared to be the same as the other posts. IMO, it is an honest mistake - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Cartman, I'd agree - however, he removed Deprifry's comments in addition to modifying a signed comment. ALWAYS ask others to edit their signed comments instead of doing it yourself. I trust this is the last time SIP will do this, so I will not invoke policy for a block on this case. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that it wasn't (obviously) a mistake? It is reasoning like yours that is necessitating concern over abuse of admin power in the first place, and costing you credibility. The relevant policy here is assume good faith. I was well within policy to mark the vote Oppose, though your point about asking is well-taken. StrangerInParadise 00:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, his vote was oppose, but he can put it in any fashion he wants -- and it doesn't give you the right to edit that. The only thing I want you to remember in this experience, SIP, is that editing other user's comments is considered rude and can be considered impersonalizing other users, and the best thing to do is to ask them to clarify their statements - but never, ever, do it yourself if it isn't your own comment. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I was happy to have him amend the Position as he saw fit, but as it was it ran the risk of obscuring those who vote after, or of thinking the poll was closed- an overriding concern. I'll let you know as well, I've asked Dep to move our growing thread out of the vote area, and synopsize his vote. You should read the thread, it is on preponderance of evidence, which should clarify for you the concern on 3RR. StrangerInParadise 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
MrM, in the diff link you gave above the only change that was made was the addition of Oppose before Deprify's comments. Nothing was removed AFAIC - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Look again, Cartman. SIP removed Deprifry's other comment: "::: [[w:Burden of proof#Standard of proof|Preponderance of evidence]] is actually a pretty high" ... --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
No, he's right, Dep added a comment when he reverted my change, and I didn't see it. I welcomed the comment, since he actually addressed the standard of proof question. StrangerInParadise 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a subtlety to Deprifry's comment on the discussion about 3RR, which SIP's alteration changed. By not putting oppose in bolded text, Deprifry was commenting on the poll without the typographical emphasis that normally indicates acceptance of the validity of a vote on the proposal. Now we have the addition that can be summed up as having the reverts for a 3RR violation block requiring listing within 24 hours of the block. I think it's time to leave this issue alone and try to avoid situations where the rule comes up. Since it has been pointed out that you are involved in a near identical discussion over on Wikipedia I would suggest you point them to our recent alteration as a good compromise to end the discussion on both wikis and move on to more constructive contributions. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Your "compromise" does not address the issues I have raised, for which a majority have voiced support, and you say to drop it as unimportant? That's chutzpah. I also saw Dep's non-vote as subtle- and kinda dug the whole VIE angle- but how is putting a lengthy non-vote in the middle of a vote not (ever so gently) disruption? You complained about breaking format, as I recall, in your own poll. BTW, if you attune your sense of subtlety, you'll see the discussion on Wikipedia is different. StrangerInParadise 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please help with this story[edit]

[11] I thought you may see some irony in the cavalier approach by PM Howard to heroin compared to the cannabis witch hunt? I could use some help wikifying and publishing this story. UK_and_Aussie_troops_will_not_fight_opium_in_Afghanistan Neutralizer 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

If the user read through the message thoroughly, it should have been quite obvious that what they were doing was wrong. I feel it is an adequate warning to the user. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry we have different views on this, however there is no reason to bring up this conversation, especially when the user is blocked, and was warned. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comments[edit]

Hey Stranger, I would be interested to see your opinion on [12] - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

Please make a seperate statement (under your own name) if you wish to join the dispute. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi StrangerInParadise... What I was hoping was that people who consider themselves to be involved in the broad/ongoing dispute with MrM would make a statement about what their problem is, and what they would like to change, specifically focussing on what needs to be changed to prevent further conflict. It appears that on the dispute resolution page we need to keep our statements separate, which is probably a good thing to prevent it deteriorating into more bickering and personal attacks, which has been done to death on article talk pages. - Borofkin 01:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution - common brief[edit]

I have no problem with a common brief, it just needs to be separate from individual statements on the dispute resolution page. I recommend a separate page that we can all work on and link to from dispute resolution. Remember, the focus should not be on proving that MrM screwed up bit-time with a particular edit... we are trying, as a community, to discover what the overall problem is, so that we can prevent future conflict. - Borofkin 03:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to make a statement at Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Users Borofkin, Mrmiscellanious, and others, I think now would be the time to do it. There are statements from five contributors already, and we're thinking about writing a joint statement, although we may wait for some participation from MrM first. - Borofkin 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

MrM and RfAr[edit]

I have listed the issues with Mrmiscellanious for arbitration as the WN:DISPUTE process is pointless at this stage, due to MrM having no interest in responding- Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now added my name as an involved party. Neutralizer 14:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Stranger![edit]

I notice you have not replied to Jimbo Wales as you said you would do. Perhaps you should do that before commenting on another case about userboxes? - Amgine | talk en.WN 10:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Userbox[edit]

I'm only supporting it (weakly) beacue it pains me to see, the deletion/undeletion/deletion that has gone on. This SHOULD ONLY last untill the arbcom reaches in decision. And I hope that their decision will be that; in current policy userboxes should be keeped. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, your right, it should only be on deletions, it was midnight when I supported it- i was half asleep :) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 18:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

ok[edit]

Thanks SiP. thank you for the kindness and good advise...have already started talking it. Neutralizer 01:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Re; my comment to Ironiridis[edit]

  • My comment was meant just as a retaliation to his accusing me of voting against his adminbecause of his edits. I considereed that accusation very insulting so I tried to do a "comeback" that was supposed to get under his skin like his "dissapointing" comment got under mine. I couldn't even stand my own comment so I changed it to a triple negative which basically negated the damn thing. The bottom line is, it wasn't meant to be taken as anything more than a silly comeback comment.
  • It was stupid and wrong for me to make that comment so I am going to send a big apology to Ironiridis along with an explanation. I also really appreciate you drawing my attention to the wrongness of my comment. Neutralizer 14:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning about etiquette[edit]

As you are aware, this project has a policy regarding civility. Please refrain from personal attacks and harmful hyperbole. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration[edit]

Your request for arbitration has been accepted. Please visit Wikinews:Requests for arbitration/Users Cartman02au et al v Mrmiscellanious/Evidence and begin adding evidence. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom thingy about Amgine[edit]

I think it should be a suggestion, and I think I made that clear in my vote. I don't like the making it policy, but just delaying the closure of the case will do nothing. I feel that the whitelist's instruction creep, counteracts the wasted time on squabling over userboxes. As I see it, the whitelist is fully modifiable at anytime if any-one wants another different box. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 23:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I voted support to the reconfirm. Even if I didn't vote support to the whitelist, It'd still have 4 votes. Notwithstanding my opinions on arbcom and policy, I still support the whitelist as a means of control over userboxes. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 00:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
By recofirm I meant the reconfirm proposal to address the problem. Thankyou for understanding. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 00:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are blocked.[edit]

You are blocked for 2 hours for uncivil postings on user talk page. You may contact me in IRC, or via e-mail, or on my talk page after the expiry of your block. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


It is against channel policy to publicly publish IRC logs without consent of all parties. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This is the only indication of why Amgine blocked me in the first place. He solicited the conversation in an official capacity. Odd that someone can call me a stalker to my face, and not be regarded as uncivil. StrangerInParadise 01:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The quotation of the chat log is still a violation of channel policy. I have removed it and someone (perhaps me) should remove it from the history of this page as well. Reading further, there is no exception at all (even with consent of all parties); publishing chat logs is not allowed. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Have you looked at your edit log lately? I really hope you can get back to collaborating or writing articles, instead of spending all your edits on conflicts - I think it might go a long way to helping wikinews expand its article base and calm down some. Lyellin 01:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I do spend a certain amount of time answering questions like this (please don't take that as I sign that I mind the question). I find, primarily because of MrM, that I am reluctant to do more than advise, copyedit and weigh in on policy matters. My policy interests have run to the following
...and of course defending myself in punitive blocks from Amgine and MrM, and seeking sanction against their various misdeeds.
You may, or may not, be aware that I first came to Wikinews to write a story about Steve Kubby, and stayed to help Cartman02au with a story about anti-cannabis laws in New South Wales. Two solid stories, both heavily and wrongfully interfered with by MrM (with the added factor of abuse of SysOp powers), ultimately little-changed from our originals and well-received when published. I then weighed in against MrM's wrongful suppression of photographs in an Abu Graib story (again, abusing SysOp powers to do so). In all these cases, he was overruled, but only after strenuous efforts on the parts of several users.
If you would like to improve the level of news participation by editors like me, consider helping to eliminate the abuse of administrative powers in editorial conflicts, and sactioning- strongly- those who so abuse. Also consider opposing those who abuse the valid requirements of civility to silence their critics.
StrangerInParadise 02:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I am a proponent of proper use of administrative powers. That does not mean that I feel that since you may or may not have been abused against, if you claim to want to work ont he site, you should not be working on articles. I checked a few days ago - you had made 3 edits to an article of any sort.. two were single copyeds, one was a bit more of a copy-ed, in the entire month of March. Now, I salute wanting to use policy - but as a user focusing on that you are drawing away others attention from writing articles to fighting/explaining/changing policy, without actually contributing to the goal of the site... in essence, we loss effort. That depresses me. And if I'm not the first to mention this, it might be a point worth considering. Lyellin 05:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't help but notice how few edits you have in either Wikinews or Wikipedia. You might consider that there are many ways to contribute, and perhaps you should not be quite so quick to dismiss my efforts as a mere distraction. Also, if you are editing stories, you might take care not to use so many negative constructions. StrangerInParadise 06:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Chuckles. I edit very carefully, and only when I feel nessecary. I am not attempt to critque your amount of edits - just where they are going towards the goal of the site. I've been here since the beginning of the site, was one of the first admins, and have written many articles for the site. I've also in the process decided that my degree was more important than wikinews and spent a long time working to ensure that - in other words, lots of time on wikibreak. I have never, and would intend to dismiss your efforts - I did just say I support some of them. But I would say that they ARE a distraction, as I'm sure others who have been involved would say, from writing and editing articles. Which negative construction are you referring to? Are you commenting on something in my last comment? If so, I apologize, but you need not attack my speaking - I have been going for over 19 hours without sleep and am rather pissed at some other editors. I was trying to comment constructivly, not attack, and comment on something I noticed. I apologize if you took it in any other manner. Lyellin 06:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
That does not mean that I feel that since you may or may not have been abused against, if you claim to want to work ont he site, you should not be working on articles. Get some rest. StrangerInParadise 07:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Good point ;). I think what I was trying to say is that I acknowledge your feeling of abuse - I am not on the arb committee, nor was I around when it happened/supposadly happened, so I won't comment. But I'd encourage you that if you want to work on the site more, to work on articles because that will help further the goal of the site. At least, I think that's what i was trying to say - who knows. Anyway, If you check the water cooler I've issued a personal challenge to myself dealing with this topic in general (not you specifically), so you might get more of where I'm coming from. Certainly was not meaning to attack you. Lyellin 19:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I think your challenge commendable. As I start to write this, I am blocked for daring critize Amgine's prior blocks, and general incivility, not to mention hypocrisy. [13] That he would not find an uninvolved admin to do so is telling. Of course, no notice has been placed on the WN:ALERT page, I have been effectively disappeared for 2 hours. An enormous percentage of the edits outside of the article space have been the result of,
  • users resisting, deploring, or appealing MrM's blocks, edit warring, bullying, deletions and other abuses of process
  • the userbox wars, which Amgine brought to Wikinews in an enormous mass deletion[14], and Amgine's other out-of-process deletions and blocks
Output on both Wikipedia and Wikinews has dropped sharply, and we agree that this is bad for the project. But, as commendable as your challenge is, it will be five steps forward, four back until the underlying cause is addressed. That is a lot to ask of a volunteer effort.
StrangerInParadise 23:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we'll have to disagree on the challenges effects. The more writing we are doing, the better. Hopefully at the same time we'll be working together, as opposed to fighting. And, just for the record, I have more edits than you on both wikipedia and wikinews. I'm not sure why you brought that up earlier, but I checked because I was bored today. *shrugs* Good luck with your cases, and I look forward to the day when you feel safe to edit again. Lyellin 17:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Definitely more than me on Wikinews (hmmm, these weren't there before- did I misclick? *blushes*), maybe not on Wikipedia (it's been over four years, but I am shutting up now, just in case). StrangerInParadise 22:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. You can check your WP count at [15] - that might help. It only lists you editing under this username for a bit (since 2005), have you used a previous name? You can also check my edits there as well. (and my wn and wikibook edits as well). Lyellin 17:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hang in there buddy[edit]

He was trying to run me off for months; 6 Crazy blocks within 1 month that other admins had to lift. Now he is using short term blocks cause he thinks the other admins will ignore it even if they are wrongful blocks. It's not good for any of us to ignore his misbehavior because then we would be co-dependents to that misbehavior. So, I'm glad you raise hell about it whenever it happens. Neutralizer 05:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman.jpg



Cheers, —SiP
""I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it's Hell."
—Harry S. Truman





Arbitrators <-> Arbitors[edit]

Is that correct? the change i mean. -Edbrown05 09:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Aw gawds, then I have to look at Harry s. Truman to add... yep you prob right. -Edbrown05 09:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (he's alright)

It is arbiters, actually. I didn't think about my change. Whatever people want is fine, I think arbiter sounds smoother (it's much older): an arbiter of good taste. However, Columbia and Merriam-Webster suggest arbitrator is better for this context. Wikipedia does use arbitrators consistently. StrangerInParadise 11:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Par 4[edit]

I've responded to your post at Wikinews:Requests for arbitration/Users Cartman02au et al v Mrmiscellanious/Workshop in the hope of further developing the principle. -Edbrown05 08:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: What?![edit]

I understand your view on this. I disagree with a hell of a lot that MrM has done but I believe that it would be better if he was subject to re-confirmation rather than to be de-sysoped. to be honest I had forgotten some of those things too :) I am trying to assume good faith with MrM. Where the NSW cannabis article was concerned my major beef was that he extended the ban for 3RR, the ban should have been for 24 hours at a maximum - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that there are several multiple violations on MrM's part but at the same time a hell of alot of what he did was as an editor and not as an admin - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
You make a good point as always. Administrators should never use their administrative powers when involved in editorial conflict. At the same time if an administrator has a problem with a particular user he should not carry out any administrative actions against that user (except in severe circumstances). I am starting to agree that yes the cases of administrative abuse are severe - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed that you never answered my question[edit]

(Moved from my user page --Sfullenwider 22:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC))

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) (from Water Cooler (policy))

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)
...I really was curious. StrangerInParadise 01:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
First, don't edit other peoples userpages. If I were evil, I'd find the appropriate policy and wave it around.

But, I'm not one of those neurotic by the book admins that follow every single argument as if lives are in the balance. I prefer to deal with issues on a case by case basis. It's just easier for me to help those involved rather than just cast down some punishment from my easy chair in the cabal HQ if I use a little leeway here and there.

I apologize for not answering your question. Honestly I didn't notice it, I don't thoroughly read all of the general communication pages that I should.
I used ebonics as an example because it isn't a real language and attempts have beeen made in the past to pass it off as a real language. I don't particularly care one way or another for userboxes that are real languages. The whitelist idea just makes it easier to prevent wikinews being used as a method to launch some pet project, for example, yet another attempt at an international language. On wikipedia, the userboxes have become rampant, like a nearly rusted away station wagon held together from headlights to taillights in random bumperstickers.
As a hypothetical, if a person created a ebonics userbox I'd tag it, notify them that the language is not real and therefore shouldn't really be in the languages directory, and give them a little time, maybe a day or two, to remove it on their own. --Sfullenwider 22:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)