Wikinews:Admin action alerts

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

Requesting a block for a violation of policy? Wikinews:Blocking policy states that administrators may block users who "excessively and consistently break site policy. Admins should only do this as a last resort - efforts to educate must be made first, followed by warnings." Admins can not and will not block unless this policy is followed. Please do not raise an alert here unless efforts to educate the user have been made, and warnings have been given. If you have an ongoing problem with another user, you should consider Wikinews:Dispute resolution.


Pages requested for speedy deletion


Refresh


Edits to protected pages

To request an edit to a protected page, add the {{editprotected}} template to the talk page, with an explanation of what edit needs to be made.


Archive requests

Use this section to list pages which should be protected for archival reasons.

Matt's DPL for old articles to be archived

Admins, if you want to help out with archiving old articles, here's some to work on. Refresh this page to get more.

The list is in reverse order, showing the oldest needing to be done. If one's already tagged, then just hit the refresh link above to get a new list.

Request for waive of Archival rules / Request for Assistance

I have a page at User:Skenmy/ToArchive that lists all pages that need to be archived. This is a HUGE list. What I am requesting is the following:

All articles more then 3 months over the archive date (97 days from today) be archived irregardless of their state. This means we can run a bot on them to archive them. Anything less than 97 days should be manually run by an admin.

Bear in mind that the earliest non-archived Published article is from March 7th 2006 - so it will take a LONG time to manually check every page. However it is more reasonable to get 3 months of articles done "by hand". I think what I am suggesting is reasonable. And yes, I know voting is evil, so let's call it a straw poll! --Skenmy(t•c•w) 18:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Questions

Straw Poll

Please use {{support}} or {{oppose}}

  • Comment as per IRC, the introduction of an archived-unreviewed template may be appropriate for use here. The bot wil mercilessly archive the ~3000 list placed into it. A notice along the lines of This article has been automatically archived by ArchiveBot without being reviewed by a Wikinews Administrator. The article may have incorrect styling, or otherwise not adhere to the Wikinews:Style Guidelines. If the article needs reviewing by an admin, please place {{editprotected}} onto the talk page of the article and it will be looked at!. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 20:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment As anyone who has followed the WN:ARCHIVE guidelines in putting stuff into the archives will know, it is hard work. Those guidelines/policy were not written to make life easy. In any case a default protect on articles that have not been through the WN:ARCHIVE policy is a good thing. They can't get any worse, and we've significantly less targets for vandalism. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I do appreciate the guidelines Brian and wish that all articles could have them applied. But I have to concede that it is not practical to retroactively fix up that many articles. If we could manually archive from November on and then stay the 7 days behind, that would be great. --Jcart1534 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Support We tried. We failed miserably, and knew we probably would, but at least we tried. There's no shame in finally admiting defeat. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment ~3000 is not insurmountable. I think we are currently making good progress and could be caught up by this summer. Of course, if Jcart is getting discouraged, progress would slow a great deal. But certainly, we should pre-archive protect all articles that are 7 or 10 days old (whatever the appropriate number is). --SVTCobra 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would have voted 'oppose' were it not for Jcart's "surrender" as seen above. However, as it seems this poll will receive support, I wonder if it is possible to add an additional tag that these articles have not gone through the normal archiving process. All I'd ask for is a way to identify such articles so that if, at some time in the future, we do have the excess manpower needed, there will be a way to make a list or DPL of the articles so that we can go back and "do it right". Just a thought, --SVTCobra 01:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I too wish the older articles could be brought up to current standards. I am not completely abandoning the idea, just being realistic about the prospects of getting enough admins on board to make it workable manually. At the rate we were going 3000 is practically insurmountable. So, without a commitment from a good number of admins to archive a handful of old articles per day, we could not catch up. However, if you see Skenmy's comment above, the tag to be added would be {{archived-unreviewed}} or something similar. It should be easy, therefore, to create a DPL to find them. I, personally, will continue to go back and fix-up and format old articles for proper archiving. I hope others will as well. --Jcart1534 15:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

This seems to have gained consensus - the bot will obviously require temporary adminship. Seeings as I did not make this clear before (even though it's pretty much a given), I will file an RfA. Please see WN:RFA. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 18:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

3RR Violations

Please list 3RR Violations in the following format: 

== Username ==
'''Original Version''': <Original Version>
*<first revert diff>
*<second revert diff>
*<third revert diff>
*<fourth revert diff>
--~~~~

You may list incomplete violations by saying "not yet" for the fourth or third diffs, but incomplete violations must be deleted after 24 hours from the first diff.

Deletions on Commons

Wikinews:CommonsTicker is now active again.

Anything else

Use this section to request help, list pages that should be watched due to repeated vandalism, user webhosting, advertising, misleading quotes, copvio, etc. These pages are not yet protected or its members blocked. Please remove the points listed that are 3 days old or have taken admin action. When listing a vandal use: {{vandal|Type in offenders name here}}.

Category:Comedy

See Category talk:Comedy for continuation of discussion.

  • I've marked done/not done and am going to copy the list & discussion to the talk page for the category, Category talk:Comedy I think there should be wider discussion - as an example I would be surprised to find obituaries on Portal:Comedy over on Wikipedia, but there likely is a valid reason for that. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Category:Croydon

This has just been created and a couple of articles dropped into it. I blanked the hardcoding of links to protected articles and left it as a regular cat for the moment. Comments? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I also added a couple of articles. However, in the category itself, I am not sure if it is appropriate to have external links to Croydon's council and community website etc. --Jcart1534 13:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
This is a super-local category. It only makes sense if there are enough stories. The current number of four stories will soon drop to three if Croydon's one step closer to Croydon Gateway is not improved soon. Doesn't seem useful to me, but maybe some UK editors can comment. --SVTCobra 13:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Some of these are sort-of tenuous linkage. I seriously suspect this should be put up for DR because at the moment going to lower resolution than county or major city cannot be consistently maintained. Assuming we had Category:London the only people who could identify reliably it was also Category:Croydon live there, that's - zero regular wikinewsies. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
No surprise, we have Category:London, but look when the headline was updated. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Given the lack of support here, I think Croydon should be put up for DR. --SVTCobra 01:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please add to Category:Oregon

Please add these pages to Category:Oregon :

They all mention and deal with Oregon in one way or another.

Thank you, Wilhelm 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

I went through this list. I did some of these. Some I did not. You can see the indicators next to the stories. The ones that are tagged not-done, are because they are not Oregon stories, like some that mention all 50 states. If someone else wants to go through and do another evaluation, feel free. --SVTCobra 01:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would agree with the selection. --Jcart1534 03:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have no problems with this selection, thank you for doing this! Wilhelm 04:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
I added one more cat to the top most previous undone one. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
But adding Oregon to Protesters mark 3rd anniversary of Iraq invasion means that at least a dozen other cats should be added. --SVTCobra 22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Vandal IP

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

71.102.71.65 (talk · contribs) - Check contribs and please block this user indef, vandal only account. Thanks, Wilhelm 11:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

User has been blocked for one month. Since this isn't an account, it isn't appropriate to block it indefinitely as it could possibly impact on other valid users. Adambro 14:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thanks. Wilhelm 18:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC).Reply
Previous block was one week, anyone got a Verizon contact I can complain to if they start up after the block expires? --Brian McNeil / talk 11:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ed

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

At time of his block, there was going to be a poll to decide if any further action was justified against him. (of course we blocked him a different amount of time then we said we would also...). Anyways, we should probably have that poll. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm either not privy, or completely unaware, of what you are talking about Bawolff. So much stuff happens in the smoke filled chambers of the chat channel that it is impossble to follow the vogue logic presented here on the MainSpace. Please be transparent people, if something is going to transpire regarding my editting status.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Edbrown05 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 14 January 2008
Since it appears that people don't want to bother with this, it really is a moot point that really doesn't matter, but if you read through the history of your talk page you can find what I'm referring to. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I see no reason for action now, the previous block as expired and Ed has returned. None of which is a problem at the moment. Adambro 14:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Ed appears to want to participate. No reason why he shouldn't be allowed at this point. --Jcart1534 15:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
As long as we see no repeat of the behavior that got him blocked (and almost banned). --David Shankbone 16:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
That is what I was leaning to as well, I just wanted to make sure that everyone was on the same page. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ban for EdBrown05

I don't know, I always argued against banning him, but he is already acting up again. He generates little content and has social problems on here that make his constant criticism not constructive. --David Shankbone 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

have blocked Ed for 4 months. a ban is appropriate at this point. –Doldrums(talk) 23:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ed has just told us to f**k off on his talk page. I am censoring it. Someone might be interested in the rest of the comment. -- Spiderpig0001 06:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've protected his user and talk page to prevent him from any more offensive outbursts. Adambro 06:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
...although that didn't stop him continuing over on my Commons talk page. This comment prompted me block him for a short period of time there. Adambro 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wow. I don't think that anyone looking for the "Old Ed Brown" of the days of yore should expect to see him back anytime soon. --David Shankbone 20:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikinews:Arbitration Committee

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Several days ago, I flagged a discussion about the expiration of some ArbCom terms and the need for elections. I also created a preliminary Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/Elections January 2008 and an associated FAQ, both based on the last election. There was limited response, however, January 31 is creeping up on us rapidly, so I thought I'd bring it up here. If we are to have a meaningful nomination/voting period, we need to get started on this. If we want to dissolve ArbCom, then we need to vote on that. What we can't do, imo, is let terms expire and then one day be faced with an arbitration case without committee members. --SVTCobra 02:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was under impresion that terms that originally going to expireat the end of this month got extended for six more months. (it was determined every six months is a bit much for a committe that essentially sits on its but and does nothing if i recall) 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bawolff (talk • contribs) 05:44, 15 January 2008
The terms are for one year, but they are staggered so that 3 seats are up every six months. I have found no evidence that terms were extended beyond one year. --SVTCobra 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I found some discussion here and here. --Jcart1534 23:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, I'm not sure the first implies a consensus, but the second does suggest it was to be changed so that terms of all expired at the same time (in December, which I find to be a poor month to choose) and elections for all seats would occur simutaneously. If that was the case, then something went awry during/after the last election as Members clearly shows that terms are expiring and that the one-year staggered system is in place. Perhaps the last election coordinators Thunderhead (chair), Daniel, Martinp23 and Brian New Zealand can enlighten us. --SVTCobra 00:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I guess a workable solution is to extend those expiring now to July and then have elections for all the seats in July. --SVTCobra 00:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Let's extend those terms to July, then have elections for all the seats. I'll be happy to chair again! Template:SS 00:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, let's just extend the terms, six months is really too short for our wiki, makes no sense to have elections every six months. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would note however that Brian has said that he is unlikely to be able to contribute much for 6 months to a year so perhaps it might be worth considering running elections now so someone more active can take Brian's seat. Adambro 17:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Don't agree. There is no point in holding an election now just to replace Brian. I think the other arbcom members should be able to keep up with the workload. --Jcart1534 18:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

(undenting) yes, a little too much process wonkery over something that hasn't done very much till date. extending this term is fine by me but if there are others (non arbcom members) interested in stepping in, i wouldn't mind holding elections now - be good to have the more active contributors involved. –Doldrums(talk) 22:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There seems to be considerable agreement/willingness to extend the current terms. To ensure that we do have consensus, please vote on this proposal. I decided to have it there because we do not archive this page and we should have a clear record of this for future reference. --SVTCobra 23:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I plan to close the voting tomorrow. It will have been open for 7 days by then. I anticipate it will pass, since there are no dissenting votes yet. If it does, I will update the relevant pages. --SVTCobra 01:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldn't pages in the Comment: namespace have the little "+" tab at the top for adding a new section, since they're for discussion or single comments? 68.39.174.238 13:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

There's currently a vote to get Comments properly integrated and tied to main/talk. I suspect the "+" will come with that. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Account creation request

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi! I'm w:User:Tango and I was trying to create an account here and I'm told "Tango" is too similar to "Tango*", an account with no edits. If memory serves, admins can override that, so could someone please create the account for me? Please either email the password to me using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Emailuser/Tango or email that address and I'll reply so you can get my email address to create the account with, whichever you prefer. Thanks! --82.152.59.121 22:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm currently processing this request. Adambro 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! --Tango 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protect request

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Please Semi-protect the article Church of Scientology website being attacked by hackers. Anon-ip vandalism. Wilhelm 09:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC).Reply

done. –Doldrums(talk) 10:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I know of no instance of semi-protecting the talk page, even for archived articles. It is the place for people to request edits to the protected article using the {{editprotected}} template. So I don't foresee that happening. --SVTCobra 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that makes complete sense, no worries. There's little vandalism at this point anyways. Wilhelm 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bizzare result of DPL

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Currently on Portal:Current events/Wikipedia, the story Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review released is listed, despite it being nearly two years old and protected. Is this intentional? It certainly looks erroneous. 68.39.174.238 18:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

It should probbaly have notcategory=archived added to it. Old published articles that get edits show up in the list otherwise. --Cspurrier 18:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bots

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

We keep on getting bots posting the same comment on talk:main page. I block them because they are zombie proxy's. They are from the 89.179 IP range. I suggest a range block on this IP range as they are all zombie proxy's. Please also look at talk main page history. —FellowWiki Newsie 17:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done soft rangeblock on all 89.179.0.0/17 addresses --Skenmy(t•c•w) 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Prolific POV-pusher moving from Wikipedia to WikiNews

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Hi. I really need some good advice here from experienced users. A prolific POV-pusher has made a move from Wikipedia to WikiNews and there do not appear to be mechanisms in place there to check him. I am referring to Wikipedia User Cirt. Cirt runs an incredible 5000+ edits per month with the main effect of his efforts being to bring articles critical of (primarily) Scientology to featured and front page status. And you know what, I have no objection to that. Wikipedia is a community and featured articles are the most scrutinized of all and I am comfortable with the community holding him in check so if he can make a Scientology-critical piece into a featured article then more power to him. Of course in areas that are not scrutinized he has more "freedom of expression" as in the article on Bowfinger where the only "Theme", according to Cirt was that Scientology is a cult, see this. He expanded it a bit after I pulled his little piece though it is still unduly weighted. Or perhaps Curt's recent spat of AfDing and prodding Scientology-series articles that are, IDK, not sufficiently critical? I am not going to play around with words here, I respect this community too much. I, for one, am 100% certain that Cirt is a reincarnation of Smee (formerly Smeelgova) who disappeared just before Cirt appeared. Their interests, article for article, are identical, as is their editing style and Modus operandi, with Smee famous for bringing material critical of Scientology to the front page under WP:DYK.

So what does this have to do with WikiNews? Well, we were discussing a recent DDOS attack on the CofS on the talk page and whether it was notable (consensus seeming to be no, not notable) and I saw a reference to a WikiNews article so I went over there. I found that someone had been very busy indeed! Not only an article on Jan 20, Hackers attack Church of Scientology website but another today, "Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology" and the first raised to FEATURED STORY status. So today, a release by some bunch of anonymous haters is front page news along with Gaza and Iraq. Who would think that? Who would benefit from that thought? Of course, I find that both were essentially written by the same person, Wilhelm. And I happen to know that Cirt's original name on Wikipedia was Curt Wilhelm Von Savage, an alias once used by Werner Erhard, the founder of EST, another of Cirt's targets, see the little treatment at Semi-Tough, similar to the treatment at Bowfinger (you may need to go back a bit as recent GA review may have toned it down). I also recognize Cirt's style in the WikiNews articles but then I am very familiar with it.

So you see my dilemma? So long as Cirt was not repeating Smee's more offensive errors and working within the community, I had no huge problem with his efforts to push his agenda. I knew that the community was large enough and the structure strong enough to hold him in check and meanwhile the project gets a prolific editor. But this WikiNews thing is a dealbreaker for me. He is using the power of Wikpedia (via WikiNews) to push the ill intentions of a small group of ne'er-do-wells (and read their page if you do not know what they are about) and he is doing it with no regard for the project or for anything other than his agenda. And there do not appear to be mechanisms in place at WikiNews to hold him in check. I really do not know where to go with this. This is a big thing and, if Cirt/Wilhelm is left unchecked, it will only get worse. Help. Please. Thanks in advance. (This is posted on Wikipedia but I am bringing it here as suggested by an admin there.) --JustaHulk 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

One, this is all speculation with no proof to back it up. 2) Anything he has published, so far, has gone above and beyond the call of duty, regarding our Wikinews:Style Guide and other policies in order to publish articles. 3) That attack on Scientology is true. I backed that up before I let it go anywhere, and if you look on the edit history, I started and published the article on the attack, and he jumped in and helped, again according to policy and such. 4) What he has done, assuming this is the same person, on WP, really has nothing to do with Wikinews, because he has not broken policy. 5) Whether he is Anti Scientology or for it, makes no difference to me when someone can go through extensive lengths to put out a damn good article.
So before we start accusing anyone of anything, please show me documented proof, that these are the same people. A CU could confirm it, but so far as I see, on WN, there is absolutely no reason to perform one at this time. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
You could start by asking him, it is not in his best interest to lie. He has done nothing "wrong" except use this project for his own purposes. If you are OK with the misuse of this project to heavily promote what amounts to cyberterrorism to forward someone's POV then that is you. --JustaHulk 00:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Again, I will ask for proof. You have provided none. He has followed policy. So until you can back up your claims with proof then please stop using this board for you personal agenda.
If it is the same person, so what? Again...he has done nothing wrong. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
A few featured articles are not "cyberterroism". Indeed, maybe wikinews is a more harmless venue for such a person. We don't attempt to "get the whole story" like an encyclopedia. Our NPOV only means that the whole *relevant* story should be told within each article.
For a dramatic example : Imagine Joe Evangelical writes an article about every pedophile catholic priest and ignores the evangelical pedophile priests. Well, there is research backing up that these occur in more or less equal proportions. So eventually people will see his game, and start sticking that fact in all the articles, which totally soils the Joe's desired effect.
I wouldn't worry about it, scientology is in a lot of news sources today, so it seems fine, but I'll read those articles a bit more carefully. Nyarlathotep 01:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi. Thanks for your consideration. You misunderstand me, I do not say that Wilhelm is engaging in cyberterrorism. The Anon group is engaging in cyberterrorism, just read their site to see what they have done to terrorize others and what they intend to do to the CofS. Wilhelm/Cirt/Smee is just doing what he does - attempting to use WikiMedia to promote his POV. In this case it is by giving undue weight and promotion to a group of cyberterrorists. As I said, I am very familiar with this cat. He is a good researcher and excels at making a little source go a long way. His articles may look "OK" but they are, in my experience, one-sided and cherry-picked. Not much to cherry-pick in this case, of course, "just" trying to play this for all it is worth. All I ask of you is to be aware of where he comes from and what his agenda is and realize that his work does not come without a price. There is an agenda. Obviously, I am not an active editor here and have little credibility perhaps. I have a certain amount of credibility, I think, on Wikipedia, FWIW. But I rely on the good admins and editors here that do not want their project misused to keep an eye on an editor that, with 5000+ edits per month has made quite a career of his mission. --JustaHulk 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I've not edited lots recently, but we've delt successfully with far more POV pushing than you know here. So long as his POV *only* influences what stories he writes, well more articles about *distinct* news events are always good.
Anyway, we've found that POV issues within stories are fairly easy to correct. News stories just ain't as long & complex as encyclopedia entries. Otoh, the only serious ArbCom case wikinews has ever faced was an admin who edited tenuously to harass & prevent stories he disagreed with.
Also, our standards for sources are intentionally far less serious than wikipedia's, heck you can just visit some important speech and write about it, but we make up for that with the newsworthiness restriction. Wilhelm has written several of Scientology news stories now partly because they exist. So many stories may simply not exist in 3 months.
Indeed, that's really the whole point, there are different limits on POV pushing here, necessarily so, and ours do work for our purposes. Nyarlathotep 14:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • The latest article on the Internet versus Scientology has me wondering if that is the one that should go to featured status. It is painfully obvious to anyone here that Wilhelm has an interest in promoting stories that cast the "Church" in a negative light. Can he do that within our guidelines? Seems so.
In any case, this discussion doesn't belong here. It is the responsibility of the entire community to keep someone's biases in check. In Wilhelm's case I believe he tries to do that himself and should be given credit for doing so. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to try to shed some light on the issue at hand from the POV of JustaHulk. He is obviously concerned that Wilhelm is using Wikinews to push his own agenda, and only write about what he believes in. What he clearly doesn't understand is that is just the way that a site like this has to work - otherwise we'd be left with no stories! People will only write about what they are most interested in, and Wilhelm has so far contributed some very informative and newsworthy articles - whether is his anti-scientologist or not himself is a different matter entirely, and not something that I personally care about. I don't think any of you care about my religious beliefs - and I know that they don't affect my writing style. But if someone is truly anti- or pro- a subject, and that is what interests them and makes them write good articles, then it is something that we at Wikinews should be embracing so that we can get more articles of the calibre currently being written. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 18:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Your point is well-taken but I think it applies more to Wikipedia than WikiNews. To state the obvious, Wikipedia is a collection of articles and a good article is a good article; WikiNews is NEWS and should have a concern for what is news and what is not news. Wilhelm/Cirt and I go waay back and I think that we have a grudging respect for one another. When Cirt last reinvented himself he devoted himself to taking articles critical of Scientology to featured status and has had some success. Again, that is not a problem for me. My problem is letting him dictate "front page news" as the announcement of a bunch of cyberterrorists, effectively setting up WikiNews as a promotional outlet for that group. That is just plain wrong. One article, the first one, was news; the second was abuse. --JustaHulk 20:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
He followed policy and guidelines. So there is no "abuse" anywhere so far as I can see. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
So what you are telling me, DragonFire1024, is that as far as you are concerned, y'all exercise little editorial control and that Wilhelm/Cirt is free to turn this site into "The Anti-Scientology News". In that case you do not run a news outlet here; you run an open blog. And to once again make my case clear. I do not object to the first article on the Anon group. I do not object to today's article on the book (though I would think that there was other news in the world but I guess you make do with what editors will provide and Wilhelm will certainly fill your void for you). I objected to the second article trumpeting an "announcement" by a cyberterrorism group. Any responsible news organization would have left that on the floor. I can only hope that others here take a more responsible attitude. --JustaHulk 06:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
As I said above, JustaHulk, Skenmy's point applies more to wikinews than to wikipedia. Wikinews articles are just news that passes by and is based on present sources. Wikinews' POV concerns are within articles. Otoh, Wikipedia must deal with surprisingly subtle global POV issues involving POV forks. Here a POV fork gets smacked back almost immediately because the issues are just not as complex.
Also, our leed articles are generally more based upon "importance" than wikipedia's. I still remember getting pissed off that a Gwen Stefani song got front page at wikipedia.  :) But here if you see a scientology article as leed, when there is obviously more important news, fine just change it, most editors agree about what is important news. Oh, fyi, our features article lists are pretty much unimportant since they don't relate to being a leed. Nyarlathotep 12:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Wikinews is not the anti-Scientology press, and we have to take the rough with the smooth when we get a contributor who wants to push their POV on a subject. Wilhelm may well have a bias in the material he chooses to cover, but that isn't Wikinews' concern. As long as he follows project guidelines he'll be welcome. Why not join us rather than attack someone who has figured out how to use the project?
Personally I'd love to see us land a couple more contributors as dedicated as Wilhelm. We could do with someone damning/exposing the Christian church, and the same for Islam. Then we want the people who believe in these ideologies. What you seem to be missing is that Wikinews wants everyone to be a journalist. Really. No kidding... Everyone. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Isn't this discussion becoming more suitable for the Water Cooler? --SVTCobra 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to move it. I guess that my desire that there be "editors over the editors" and that those "super-editors" be the administrators is kinda unrealistic. I guess that the prolificness (I dare not say prolixity; kettle-black and all that), the prolificness and number of the editors from any one POV will determine the POV of this medium. And we all know where Scientology stands on the internet. --JustaHulk 04:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
I thought the newsworthy aspect was that Scientology isn't standing on the Internet. :-P When the Wikinews project was started I believe people like Jimmy Wales expected it to be far more geeky/technical in the coverage. I think the worst accusation you could put against Wilhelm is he doesn't seem to have contacted the CoS for a statement. Xenu forgive him. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts&oldid=564981"