# User talk:Benny the mascot/Archive 2

## Stale article about gunmen attack.

Whew! I haven't been on in a while. I tagged it as stale since, since I read (somewhere) that articles that are two day old should be tagged as stale. That event happened on April 3rd, so I tagged it as stale on APril 5. You changed it to say the event happened on April 5th. Am I missing somthing? Buggie111 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you're referring to Gunmen kill 25 in Iraqi village, yes? The date on the topmost line is actually the date of publication, not when the event actually happened. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

## Thank you!

Thanks for writing those briefs today - you really saved my butt! Turtlestack (talk) 02:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

## Hey

I'm talking with that guy, to see if he wants his name published or not. I'll contact you as soon as I come back to Pichilemu. Cheers. --Diego Grez return fire 14:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Look.
```<Diego_Grez> Are you around?
* [AdamCuerden] End of WHOIS list.
<Diego_Grez> OK.
<Diego_Grez> The article was deleted because you said you don't wanted your name there.
<Diego_Grez> Do you want your name published or not? :)
<AdamCuerden> Well, I'd prefer it not be in the title, anyway
<Diego_Grez> OK. But can I still put it on the article?
<AdamCuerden> I mean, if the focus is on Jimbo, anyway
<Diego_Grez> OK. Thanks.
<AdamCuerden> I'd prefer you leave out the main page thing, though.
<AdamCuerden> It was a minor incident.
<Diego_Grez> OK :)
<Diego_Grez> I'll ask you some more questions then, in a moment. Busy atm :)
```

--Diego Grez return fire 22:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

## Archive of article - explanation

Blast. Funnily enough, I don't even remember doing that. I guess that, after cutting/pasting {{publish}} to the correct location, I automatically thought the article needed archiving (because I always paste {{archive}} to the bottom of articles right before archiving). Me needs to be reprogrammed, sorry. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol. --Diego Grez return fire 22:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Ha ha... don't worry about it! Benny the mascot (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

## US vs. American move war

Hi, you might wish to check my latest comment at the talk page Talk:US actor Gary Coleman dies aged 42, which might concern you. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 21:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

## Hey!

Could you review my article please? :) --Diego Grez return fire 21:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay... I've been taking a nap. ;) Benny the mascot (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Lol. OK =) --Diego Grez return fire 01:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the edit conflicts, and thanks for reviewing. =) --Diego Grez return fire 03:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

## Super Portal Template

Hi!

As one of the people pushing for improved portals, what's your thoughts on how I'm doing with Portal:Scotland? Feel free to copy the code from that page into a sandbox page and play with the parameters on it. You will, however, need to copy Mediawiki:Common.css/Portal:Scotland to Mediawiki:Common.css/your-sandboxy-page-name. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I'll try to take a look at it soon... Benny the mascot (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• If you can try and do so fairly soon, I'd appreciate it. I'm off work today, and tommorrow; but, tommorrow I need to try and get to a doctor's for some "quality" painkillers for my bruised or cracked rib. Any feedback on how to organise the bottom half would be greatly appreciated. You'll see it is an attempt to propagate the main page look'n'feel down through the site. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok...I've finished (hopefully) working on Portal:Illinois. I like the whole idea of keeping the format consistent throughout the site, but I'd like to see regional templates such as {{United States}} added as well, maybe below all of the continent links. Also, I would get rid of the other languages and sister projects links. Benny the mascot (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

## Appropriate use of block summaries

As you seem unaware, a block summary is what is displayed to a user when they attempt to edit; your summary was wholly inappropriate. It is not an edit summary. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

## Speedy deletion technicality

Just thought I'd you know that OBAT DIABETES HEMAT BIAYA should have been deleted as Foreign language, not news, rather than as a test page as it was an article probably better suited for an encylopaedia written in Indonesian. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...I had a feeling it was in a foreign language, but I didn't know for sure. "Test page" seemed to be a nice second option. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

## Sports Prefixes

Could you please take a look at Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Sports_Prefixes. Please give your thoughts there. Calebrw (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Abusive usernames do not get a chance to rename.

You indefinitely block AND delete all associated pages. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Meh...might as well give him the chance to redeem himself. If he gets more abusive, then I take tougher action. Benny the mascot (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• NO. You block, you delete user and talk pages. If they want to redeem themselves they can create a non-abusive username after the block on the IP expires. Every single "you have been blocked" or whatever message on their talk page gives the abusive username another entry in recent changes, another ocurrence of the abusive name, and so on. We are not a 'troll rehab clinic'. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• Hi Benny, just to let you know i replied to your query on this here. This user is a persistent, long-time vandal, so the chance of him trying to "redeem" himself is practically nil. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

(I had an ec on Tempo's talk page. Let's continue the discussion here) As I said, I like to give users a chance to redeem themselves. After all, I too have been blocked before when I edited through an account on wp about four years ago, so I can sympathize with vandals. Perhaps neither of you have had that experience, have you? While my offenses were so minor that I got 1 week blocks at the max, they almost discouraged me from contributing all together. But no...something about the project brought me back, and now I am here faithfully serving Wikinews after having contributed to Wikipedia! Vandals just need a bit more time to mature, I think. Or maybe I'm just too nice... :) In any case, I'll try to not be too soft on vandalism. I promise. :D (oh, and I have absolutely no idea who our recurring vandals are. Do we have a list?) Benny the mascot (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Generally I agree with giving unconstructive users a chance to reform; however, this is a known cross-wiki vandal who I would argue is not going to reform, and will only take advantage of anything less than a full hard-block to vandalise the project more. A user who is so obviously disruptive as to create an attack username probably didn't come here with the intention of helping the project ever ... Tempodivalse [talk] 14:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• I really must disagree with your unblock of Coloradorun (talk · contribs)'s IP. That user is a persistent, cross-wiki vandal who has abused many userpages in WMF wikis. Unblocking the IP just gives him another means through which to vandalise; he's not going to contribute here constructively. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Things like these aren't nice. This user isn't going to change. --Diego Grez return fire 18:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
• We do not have a corresponding policy to Wikipedia's AGF. And, I assure you, that is with good reason. Anyone who is enough of a dick to create an abusive username does not deserve a second chance with that account. They can sit out the block of their IP, and - in the unlikely event they would like to contribute constructively - try and start with a clean sheet.
Yourself, Tempo, and several of our newer converts from Wikipedia, really don't understand what I've done on this project to keep trolling to a minimum. I have the respect of people on alt.hackers.malicious who hunt down online paedophiles and - with questionable tactics - get law enforcement dealing with them. Then again, I'm old-school; I was online a good number of years before you were born, I was hacking before there were any laws against such, I will - frankly - take on anyone.
This, however, is Wikinews, and, as the fourth estate, one of the most important pillars of a free, democratic society. We must hold all the other aspects of society to account, and hold a mirror up to show the ugly aspects of their behaviour. I got us listed in Google News, and that listing has stuck. When Erik Moeller, current Deputy CEO of the WMF met them about the same, we were de-listed within 45 minutes of the end of the meeting.
I can live without the responsibility associated with CheckUser, but if the Wikipedification of this project continues I will see it shut down and rolled back into an insignificant corner of Wikipedia before moving on to something else. "A chance" and "Enough rope to hang yourself" are a million miles apart; if you can't see where which is appropriate, you should not have responsibility for blocks. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

## Bugging Stewards

For the majority of purposes, the various pages that are currently at-issue can simply be left as deleted; I do not think there is a need to go as far as getting them oversighted. We do trust admins to see deleted pages, right?

At the moment, the best thing would be to try and bring things back to internally handled by Wikinewsies.

Incidentally, as I mentioned last night in IRC, one of the local universities did indeed confirm to me that articles written on Wikinews could indeed by submitted as part of a portfolio – should someone from here be interested in a career in journalism. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

## Reviewing and Copyediting

I, casually, count about a dozen grammatical, style guide, and formatting errors in this article. Review is not a rubber-stamp. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) Wow, I'm really sorry Brian. I really don't know what was going on in my head at the time. Maybe I just felt really angry about the fact that the article was up for review for over a day??? I've always felt that having to wait for so long really isn't fair to the writers, but I know that's not a good excuse for a lax review at all. :/ I'll try to be more careful next time. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

## In case you didn't see it...

Just in case you didn't see it. Reconfirm closed. I'm sorry to report, but you're still an admin. You're safe to abuse some newbies now.--ShakataGaNai ^_^ 00:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

## Hey

Thanks ;-p --Diego Grez return fire 22:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

## 2-hour block

Hi Benny. I saw this in the recent changes, and thought I'd pop in to comment:

1x:30 . . Benny the mascot (Talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for 75.47.129.69 (Talk) with an expiry time of 2 hours (anonymous users only, account creation disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Vandalism, blanking talk page (nah...let's give this person a chance. Wikinews is a bit slow today anyway))

I don't know that I agree with that. Why block him at all if only for two hours? The user is a repeat, persistent vandal, and he's only going to take advantage of a short block to vandalise the project more, IMHO. See here for previous vandalism. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 16:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If you checked the previous block, I blocked the user for six, not two, hours. I was merely adjusting for the time difference.
As for the merits of a six-hour block, I think that being lenient towards vandals actually makes them less likely to become repeat offenders. Indef blocks give vandals something they can try to circumvent and a reason to vandalize more, short blocks give them a chance to redeem themselves. We all know that Wikinews doesn't have that many contributors; if we want to have more users, then we're going to have to start being less stringent with our blocking policy and start educating potentially productive contributors.
On a related note, WN:BP states that "it is up to admins to use their discretion to decide when to block, and how long for." If you can't trust my judgment, then you really shouldn't have supported me during my reconfirmation. Just sayin... Benny the mascot (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want to suggest I don't trust your judgment, I'm just wondering what the reasons behind such a short block were. I'd agree that short blocks might sometimes actually have a better affect on first-time vandals or unconstructive users, but for long-term vandals (which I think this user is) that have their minds set only on vandalising, that's just ... counterproductive. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

## My userspace

Why did you delete my test page in my userspace? It certainly wasn't because of "user request". If I'd wanted it deleted, I'd have done it myself. Gopher65talk 15:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I keep forgetting who's admin and who isn't. Could you please link to the page you're referring to? There may have been a template put up for deletion that was transcluded on your page. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
It was User:Gopher65/test. It was deleted sometime between May 28. Here are the logs. Anywho, I'm not mad, I'm just curious. I don't *think* there was a transluded delete template in that revision, but you never know. Gopher65talk 01:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

## NASCAR driver Montoya wins pole at New Hampshire

Thank you for publishing this article. --Nascar1996 14:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Happy to help. Benny the mascot (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I also learned some more things about Wikinews from you review. --Nascar1996 14:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

## Thank you

Hi, thanks for unblocking me once again. I'll just say that I hope you'll never get chance to see any kind of trouble from my side again. I want to use this account as I already forgot password of user account "Saqib". Thank you! --Saki (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, soory I'm out of country now thats why got time to check WN but could you please brief me whats actually going on here? It seems that the article is going to delete? --Saki (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

## Close paraphrase

I just wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article we both reviewed as apparent copyright infringement:

It appears that you and I disagree on what the outcome of the review should have been.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit surprised that you reverted Cirt's deletion as out of process: yet the process for suspected infringment ({{copyvio}}) is deletion after one day. In my experience, the appropriate appeals process is WN:DR. Have I misunderstood something somewhere (I am new to the admin bit) ? --InfantGorilla (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
We don't speedy delete published articles. (Something to do with Google News and such) If you'd like to have it deleted, then DR is the way to go. Cheers! Benny the mascot (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In that case the proposed deletion policy has drifted out of sync with practice, and is another policy to add to the list for review.
However, I disagree with your interpretation: the proposed deletion process we used lists it at the bottom of WN:DR and gives 24 hours for objections (in this case it had 48 as I proposed it twice.) It was within process for Cirt and McNeil to delete it after no substantial objections were posted. I don't see any need for an admin to undelete it, just in case one of the anti-revisionists wishes to object later.
Lets resolve the question of a retraction notice at Water Cooler. (Wikinews:Water cooler/policy#Delete a published article?)
--InfantGorilla (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

## ArbCom Elections

Are you sure it is appropriate for you to be putting questions to ArbCom candidates? --Brian McNeil / talk 02:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be appropriate? I'm not indicating support for any candidate, and I intend to ask all of them a question. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• The very act of involving yourself in the election is questionable if you are responsible for overseeing it. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• To my mind, Benny may ask general questions aimed at all candidates but must be very careful if he does so. Should a judge ask questions? Great minds could argue that for decades. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

## Restoring Saki's interview

1. I think you clicked the wrong button to restore, as there seems to be no history restored with it.
2. Are you sure you want to do this? I can't see any advantage to doing so, as the deletion debate suggests that he will never be allowed to publish it. The disadvantage is that, while it is not linked from the main page or the archives, it is still visible to the public.
--InfantGorilla (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
1. I don't know exactly how to do that. I guess I'll just keep playing with the admin buttons until I figure it out. :P
2. He wanted it restored for his own historical purposes, and I really don't see any reason to deny his request. Besides, the interview already has been copied on other websites, which makes your last point moot. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
(Re 2) In that case I will post our retraction notice at the top, to make our position clear to visitors who don't know about user pages. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Benny the mascot (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
1. Should we protect it too?
2. If it is already mirrored to other sites, can't he make his historical record from there?
--InfantGorilla (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
If you'd like to protect it, then go ahead. As for your second point, Saki wishes to appeal the deletion on DR. Over the next few days, I'll be reexamining all of the information that's come through, and hopefully I can help him out with that undeletion request. (For the record, I think this whole thing is a huge mess that nobody can be satisfied with. We'll just have to work with what we got.) :( Benny the mascot (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Could you please e-mail me current version of the interview article as Brianmc deleted it alrady. --Saki (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Given the state of this whole mess, please seek community consensus before emailing it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Here we go again ... I don't see any big advantage to recreating it publicly (emailing it should be okay in my opinion if saki wants it), but at the same time I don't know that there's justification in deletion policy for forcibly suppressing it from userspace (it's not obviously disruptive, vandalism, or any other criteria under which we'd speedy delete user subpages, AFAIK). If anyone wants to pursue restoration, though, I'd suggest filing an undeletion request at WN:DR. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Saki's interview can be restored when hell freezes over, with him about 40 feet under the ice sheet. I don't give a damn where, but not on this wiki. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
To my mind a deletion review will overstep the limits of Saki's unblock probation. After an overwhelming vote for retraction, it will be unnecessary wikidrama. Accusations of disruption are thrown about here for far less. Why don't you encourage him to let this lie? It will be a good way from him to demonstrate his newly discovered good faith. --InfantGorilla (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Saki should wait and demonstrate he is 'trusted' enough to get the interview back. I encourage writing some articles, but zero original reporting. News Google is a good start. Diego Grez return fire 18:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to interject my random opinion, I think saki should be allowed to get a copy of his interview if he wants (its his interview after all), but it shouldn't be publicly re-created on wikinews, and in general, we (wikinews) should distance ourselves from the interview as much as possible. Bawolff 19:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, Bawolff is right... Diego Grez return fire 19:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• Under no circumstances would I give him a copy of that and risk him going and publishing the partial-birth abortion that it was elsewhere. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'm with Brian, for a change. If he doesn't have access to a copy of it, he has only himself to blame. He and the rest of the world are better off without it (unless we need a copy for our ethics casebook.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I offered to email Saki a copy of the article, in exchange for him not posting it anywhere on Wikinews or raising the issue again. He has accepted, so hopefully we can now put this behind us. the wub "?!" 08:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

## Something for you...

For all your recent copyediting and reviews...much appreciated! C628 (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you so much! :) Benny the mascot (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

## Drunken Man surprised Crocodile bit him

Can you review this please =)BKCW8 talk 07:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

## Australian Prime Minister denies striking a deal with predecessor

Can you review this? please and thank BKCW8 talk 08:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, --Nascar1996 14:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see here my request and comment. --Saki (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you read comment of McNiel here?. I'm sure, my request at WP:CHU will be rejected. --Saki (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Brian McNeil isn't the only bureaucrat on Wikinews. I'm sure your request will be thoroughly considered by a neutral party. Benny the mascot (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• It isn't a matter of neutrality here Benny. Look at Xyr comment here - reference to a Wikipedia shortcut. How long, and how often, has Saki/Saqib/god-knows-what-else been turning up here? Still knows squat about the policies. I think, given the trouble caused by this user it is perfectly reasonable to offer to put them back on their original username and on probation. I will not oversee it, but I do not want another "semi-vanish" then pop up and create havoc 6-12 months down the road. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

## Fire strikes Slovak Academy of Sciences

EPR didn't sight the article, so it showed up at Aricles mispublished. I sighted it for you. --Pi zero (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Benny the mascot (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

## Inappropriate, uncalled-for, insinuations

I a most unhappy at your comment and reference to the Saki/Saqib issue in the latest WikiWitchhunt.

It seems sad that in kicking off the latest drama, HJ appears to be ignoring his own part in causing the latest mess I've had to work on cleaning up.

Perhaps you don't understand the role, and responsibilities attached to being a 'crat; I've always understood it to include the "dirtiest" cleanup jobs. Who would you rather closed that? It needed done. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talkmain talk 07:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

WN:A says that we currently have 55 administrators, who are all equally capable of closing that debate. Surely someone uninvolved must have been available that day! The discussion involved several contributors who were heavily divided on the issue, and having an involved administrator close it threatens the integrity of the democratic processes that govern this project. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

## Certificate of participation

${\displaystyle {\color {Blue}{\mathfrak {Wikinews}}}:{\color {Sepia}The\;Free\;News\;Source}}$

Certificate of Participation

This certifies that Benny the Mascot participated in the May 2010 writing contest, writing 2 articles for 12 points in the course of the competition. Good work.

ummm ... a bit late, but thanks! Benny the mascot (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

## Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2010 election/Judging#C628's semi-retirement

Sigh. Why can't we retain editors anymore? 20:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and Blurpeace has left as well. At least the election mess is over. 21:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
(sigh) Yes, at least the election mess is over. :( Benny the mascot (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)