User talk:Darkfrog24

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

A nice cup of coffee for you while you get started

Getting started as a contributor
How to write an article
  1. Pick something current?
  2. Use two independent sources?
  3. Read your sources before writing the story in your own words?. Do choose a unique title? before you start.
  4. Follow Wikinews' structure? for articles, answering as many of who what when where why and how? as you can; summarised in a short, two- or three-sentence opening paragraph. Once complete, your article must be three or more paragraphs.
  5. If you need help, you can add {{helpme}} to your talkpage, along with a question, or alternatively, just ask?

  • Use this tab to enter your title and get a basic article template.
    [RECOMMENDED. Starts your article through the semi-automated {{develop}}—>{{review}}—>{{publish}} collaboration process.]

 Welcome! Thank you for joining Wikinews; we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. To help you get started we have an essay that will guide you through the process of writing your first full article. There are many other things you can do on the project, but its lifeblood is new, current, stories written neutrally.
As you get more involved, you will need to look into key project policies and other discussions you can participate in; so, keep this message on this page and refer to the other links in it when you want to learn more, or have any problems.

Wikipedia's puzzle-globe logo, © Wikimedia Foundation
  Used to contributing to Wikipedia? See here.
All Wikimedia projects have rules. Here are ours.

Listed here are the official policies of the project, you may be referred to some of them if your early attempts at writing articles don't follow them. Don't let this discourage you, we all had to start somewhere.

The rules and guides laid out here are intended to keep content to high standards and meet certain rules the Wikimedia Foundation applies to all projects. It may seem like a lot to read, but you do not have to go through it all in one sitting, or know them all before you can start contributing.

Remember, you should enjoy contributing to the project. If you're really stuck come chat with the regulars. There's usually someone in chat who will be happy to help, but they may not respond instantly.

The core policies
Places to go, people to meet

Wiki projects work because a sense of community forms around the project. Although writing news is far more individualistic than contributing to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, people often need minor help with things like spelling and copyediting. If a story isn't too old you might be able to expand it, or if it is disputed you may be able to find some more sources and rescue it before it is listed for deletion.

There are always discussions going on about how the site could be improved, and your input is of value. Check the links here to see where you can give input to the running of the Wikinews project.

Find help and get involved
Write your first article for Wikinews!

Use the following box to help you create your first article. Simply type in a title to your story and press "Create page". Then start typing text to your story into the new box that will come up. When you're done, press "save page". That's all there is to it!



It is recommended you read the article guide before starting. Also make sure to check the list of recently created articles to see if your story hasn't already been reported upon.


-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: help template[edit]

Hey, thanks for your offer of help on my talk page, but I think I may have done it wrong. I put it there as a kind of "I am a noob, beware my mistakes"(not that I've made any contribs so far, shame on me), so sorry if it's not right, I'll take it down. And sorry again if this isn't how to reply to a message :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steelthumbs (talkcontribs)

"okay, I hit review on this once last night and once this morning, and the request didn't go through TWICE"[edit]

As the maintainer of the software that implements that button, I need to know as much as I can about any problems with it. What did these request-not-going-through incidents look like? --Pi zero (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

They looked normal. The last-night time, I don't remember if I hit the review button or went into the code and changed "develop" to "review," but the this-morning time I definitely hit the button. I didn't turn off my computer or close the window until after the process appeared to have completed, taking me to the next screen. It looked like it had gone through, like always. In the Newsroom screen, the title still appeared under "Development," but some lag in that is normal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Very strange. Btw, there is a "refresh" button in the newsroom that brings it up-to-date. --Pi zero (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, here is a further thought on this, fwiw: The dialog tools are client-side software; that is, they run on your machine. So if you don't actually see the modified page with the {{review}} tag on it, it's a good bet the operation hasn't completed yet. --Pi zero (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Three tips[edit]

Three tips (which I hope will be useful for you not in just this one story but also in others)

1) Similarity of structure

I would like to remark here that the similarity of some passages to sources -- not in phrases but in the order that they go one after another -- is quite troubling. There is parargaph

"Police said they were called to Fishmonger's Hall shortly before 2 p.m. local time, where Khan had attended a conference on criminal justice and prisoner rehabilitation, called "Learning Together," run by the University of Cambridge's Institute of Criminology. Khan had been wearing a fake suicide vest, police said, adding that the attack started inside Fishmonger's Hall. Khan stabbed "a number of people" inside the hall, police said, and The Times reported that one of the two killed died inside the hall. " (source)

"According to police, they were called to Fishmonger's Hall at Cambridge University around 2:00 p.m. local time. The University had been hosting a program called "Learning Together" for criminals wishing to rehabilitate. Khan was attending a related event. Police also said that Khan claimed to be wearing a suicide vest, though it was later found to be a harmless fake. " (yours)

As it is a feature of author rather than article I am commenting about it here. It is a bad mix of background with details without connection between these pieces. Can you please avoid this?

2) Missing details

Also some important details about the third person removing the knife and police surrounding the criminal with guns out are missing in the wikinews report. I hope this is not on purpose...

3) Attribution

Also it is important to note where the information comes from - lots of the information about how the event went is either from police or from social media and the source of each information should be stated clearly for the readers to be aware.

Thanks, Gryllida (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Move alert[edit]

Hi. In case if you were working on the CDC article and have not saved your edit, I have moved it to US Centers for Disease Control sends measles experts to Tonga, Fiji, American Samoa. Don't lose your edits.
•–• 18:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Acagastya: This was most conscientious of you; thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Oops[edit]

sorry, didn't mean to interrupt if you're editing the article. --Pi zero (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If you mean the stampede article, I was done. A single-edit thing. A felt-like-a-single-edit thing. You are conscientious as ever, Pi zero. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Greeting folks[edit]

You left a nice note of greeting on that user's talk page. I think that's great; a friendly greeting to a new user is altogether a good thing. Alas, that particular account had the clear markings of a spambot (generic introductory message saying their gender, where they're from, and some supposed interest, followed by something like "take a look at my blog" with a link to some completely unrelated commercial site, often in a non-English language that isn't even remotely consistent with the persona they just claimed). I block several spambot accounts of that general sort per day; but in this case I felt bad about it, because I really did like the nice note you left them. Anyway, I wanted to leave a note of approval for the spirit of you greeting. --Pi zero (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The possibility did occur to me.
Possibility #1: Imogen is human. I have provided a happy greeting. Our chances of a long-term wikinewsie have increased. Good effect points, say positive 1200.
Possibility #2: Imogen is a bot. I have made an ever so mild fool of myself. Negative effect points, say 5. Mitigating factor: If it is a bot, it will be deleted along with the post I made showing my mild foolishness.
It was a calculated decision. I am good at math. You probably made a similar one before making this post. Good effect points to you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration effort: analysis; 5Ws[edit]

Hi Darkfrog24.

This year you have written the following.

title comments or corrections made
Solar panel efficiency could be boosted 30%, say scientists "H" not answered; 'affordability' neither attributed nor supported by figures; wrong order of paragraphs?
Easter Island mayor blames lax traffic standards for truck-statue smash "H" not answered
Canadian government representatives meet with Wet'suwet'en leaders over pipeline "elected councils" unexplained; one para copied from source
COVID-19 may spread like flu, say scientists over generalization (corrected by reviewer); attribution missing (reviewer);
World Health Organization names new coronavirus COVID-19 'H' missing; numerous claims vague and not attributed - reviewer, again
First foreigners die from coronavirus in Wuhan, China missing 'When' in lede; attribution missing; rm analysis; vague figure - reviewer; again; again x2; reviewer
Seismic activity continues to shake Puerto Rico with 5.2 quake attribution missing - reviewer
Samoan government ends state of emergency over measles outbreak attribution missing - reviewer

Can you please afford

  • removing analysis and
  • inserting more attribution and
  • answering the 5Ws in the first paragraph consistently

in the future? This would not necessarily require in depth research, and it would reduce the work that the reviewers need to do. Thank you.

--Gryllida (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Gryllida, I don't happen to have time to go over this with you. I am doing something else right now. Your comments might be valid and they might not, but you've taken to ordering me around and I don't want to do anything that could encourage you to act in a way that I don't want you to act. I'll just say that on cursory glance, this post of yours seems polite.
On same cursory glance, I'm guessing you mean "H" for "how," as in "In the lede, you did not say how the agent performed the act that is the focus of this article." In my opinion, the "5W" rule is a suggestion. You see it in writing textbooks given to young highschoolers. It's a stage to go through while learning how to write well, but it is not the end stage. It's a "do this most of the time and you'll be close enough" kind of thing. It's not a "you have to do this all the time" kind of thing. If you look at professional news articles and many of own Wikinews articles, you'll see that that's more or less what they and we do: most of them most of the time, not all 5W all of the time.
In other words, the quantitative question "Does the lede say who, what, where, when, and how?" is a tool to help us answer the qualitative and subjective but far more important question "Does the lede introduce the article well?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Oh well I guess you've intrigued me. I'll take a closer look at some of these. Help me, but I'm a sucker for a nice clear chart. That thing is really pretty to me.
Easter Island article: I didn't hit review because I couldn't find a corroborating source in time. Everything about that article is moot.
Solar panel article: 1) The paragraph order isn't wrong. It's just not exactly what you personally happen to think is best. You and I have different interpretations of the paragraph order guideline. That's all. If you want a change in paragraph order, go on and make it. You have every right to think your way is better than mine but it's not okay for you to act like I don't have the right to think my way is better than yours. We are all colleagues and equals here. 2) I already told you about the affordability thing: The sources do not say, so we both cannot say and don't have to.
Samoan: As per the attribution, we don't have to attribute facts that are not controversial. "128 teams participated" is not controversial or in dispute. Pi zero is free to add extra attribution if he wants to, but it's not actually required for publication. Let me see if I can find the exact Wikinews guideline that covers this. Ah, it's Pi zero's essay WN:ATTRIBUTE. The statement "128 teams participated" is not "analysis, or opinion, or disputed." Rather, it is an objective fact that no one has questioned.
"The Chinese government's initial response to the outbreak was to attempt to conceal it" is not analysis. It's the international consensus, and I got it from the sources provided. I didn't check every link you labeled "analysis," but I'm guessing this is what it is in most cases, something from the sources and not original research on my part.
I'm out of time, so I'll look at this last link: [1] This happens a lot. The source says "over two million," but if I put in "over two million," it will bother Pi zero because of copyright/copying/plagiarism issues. So I say it in a different way "millions." Then Pi zero sees it and thinks "'over two million' is better!" (which it is) and puts that there. But because Pi zero did it himself, it doesn't bother him or seem as copyright-problematic.
So to sum up, a lot of this is just you and I interpreting the rules differently. If you want an article to match your own vision of what it should be, as always, I welcome your contribution. But do the work yourself. Wikinews requires us to consent to be "edited mercilessly and redistributed by others." In other words, I do have to let other people rip up my work and remake it into something I don't think is exactly best, but I am not required to rip it up myself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "The sources do not say, so we both cannot say and don't have to." suppose they don't have to, but don't you want to? Wouldn't it make you and the readers more informed?
  • Perhaps it is better to attribute anything that is only from a single source, or that was untrivial to obtain? Counting number of teams is not a trivial task. Compared with, say, a murderer pleading guilty. (Opened a query here.)
  • "Millions" may lead the reader to believe "nine millions". It is an exaggeration. I do not think Pi zero replaces "over two million" with "millions" just like that. Gryllida (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the "official guideline" status of a document is not good enough for you to follow? Gryllida (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't quite know what you mean when you say "official guideline status of a document." Are you trying to cite a Wikinews guideline or something else?
Per your three examples here, they all boil down to "I think the article would be better if someone did X." That's the disconnect. It's not about whether a given change would make the article better or wouldn't. It is about whether it is necessary or not necessary. You seem to think it's my responsibility to make the draft into (YOUR personal vision of) the best possible version of itself. It is not. It is the responsibility of whoever hits review to make sure the draft is good enough to publish as-is. All of these were.
  • No, I don't want to. I've explained many times that adding that extra information would require hours of extra research running around looking for an additional source that I have guessed is not there to find. No I will not waste hours of my time just because you feel like it, and the fact that you don't think it's worth your time makes me wonder why you think it's worth mine.
  • It's not about whether it's better. It's about whether it's necessary. If someone else wants to add extra attribution, that's fine.
The bottom line is that Wikinews is a volunteer site. Everyone here has work or school or should be assumed to have other obligations that are important to them. I am donating my time. The only person with the authority to decide how much time I will donate is me.
This conversation is very similar to many we've had before. It is time for you to respect my wishes, accept that I will not obey you the way an employee would obey an employer, and move on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, WN:5W's status is "official guideline". Gryllida (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It is a question of motivation. Everyone else thinks that (a) making that change would make the article better; (b) they want to be that one person who makes it better because they have time and knowledge to do so. I am wondering now, which of these two steps you are not willing to make? Alas, it seems both. Gryllida (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
So you were talking about WN:5W. Then you must note that WN:5W does not say "all ledes must contain 'who,' 'what,' 'where,' 'when,' and 'how.'" It doesn't even say all articles must contain them. It says they are "flexible reminders of the kinds of information important to include." It says "how" should be included only if the mechanism is unclear and that "why" is often subject to neutrality issues. Sounds good to me. In my experience it's pretty common for people to remember the name of a guideline and forget what it actually says. On Wikipedia people cite WP:BATTLEGROUNDING when they mean any kind of being aggressive but if you read what it actually says, it cites various specific kinds of fighting dirty. People act like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS means "Don't complain if someone wrongs you on Wikipedia; you must passively accept all punches" but it actually says "Don't use Wikipedia to right wrongs out in the real world." It sounds like you had a memory shift about WN:5W. It's perfectly normal to need to reread the guidelines once every few years.
What I am not willing to do is play along with a let's-pretend game. "Darkfrog24, can you pretend that Bill or Bob or Gryllida is a professional journalist and that you're their stupid intern who must jump and dance for their amusement?" Nope. You guys do that if you want but leave me out of it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Re: 128 teams, where did the number come from?

  1. Did you count them? Then you don't have to attribute it to anyone else.
  2. Did you ask the organiser? Then you must attribute them by writing "..., the organisers told Wikinews".
  3. Did the organiser say that in a public statement/press release? Then you must attribute them by writing "..., the organisers said in a press release/public statement".
  4. Did the organiser tell another news agency? Then you must attribute both the parties by saying "..., the organisers told XYZ agency".
  5. Did other news agency count it? Then you must attribute the agency by writing "..., XYZ agency reported".
  6. If multiple agencies reported that, you should say how you got that information by writing "..., multiple reports claimed". Give credit where credit is due. Someone is ,making the information available, and they must get their credit.--103.66.49.33 (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Nope. None of that is necessary. The word "must" does not apply. You can add that extra detail if you feel like it (and if the information is available), but it is not required for publication. Per your fifth point, attributing a fact to the news source, at least a few of the reviewers here don't like that and have told me so. Per your sixth, if multiple agencies are reporting something, then it's common knowledge. That's a sign that the information does not need to be attributed in most cases.
It comes back to this: All initial drafters are volunteers and have only so much time to devote to each draft. The drafter does a bit of mental triage. What do I think is important to include? I do that. Then if any of my colleagues want to add or delete text, they get to. Attribution is not necessary for every single fact; articles would be too cumbersome to read if it were.
Read WN:ATTRIBUTE and you will see this for yourself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The fifth point makes sure that you give the credit to that news agency who bothered counting. Maybe on-field counting, or looking through the attendance list, or via CCTV camera. They did the work to get that number, not you. So they must get the credit. There is no ethical way to bypass it. :::What if that news agency got it wrong? They made a blunder and reported incorrectly? By not attributing, we are damaging our reputation by reporting false information, as well as not even crediting where the information came from.
This is not a rare incident. Take this article for example. The radius of the star was 80% of Jupiter's. Multiple sources including CBC reported it. To quote CBC, "The small star is just slightly larger than Saturn, or 80 per cent the size of Jupiter, with a radius of 49,000 kilometres". They made a mistake while reporting the actual radius. 49000 km is 80% of Saturn's radius, which renders the first half of the sentence incorrect.
For this article, Premier League source claimed Zlatan has won one UEFA Champions League with Inter Milan. However, that is not true. So if someone were to write "Player A has won XYZ award", when in fact he didn't, that is damaging our reputation. But, if you were to write "Player A has won XYZ award"
If multiple agencies are reporting it becomes a common knowledge. Are you sure? Multiple news sources stated for this article the letter was dated May 15. But when it was confirmed with Commonwealth's PR, it was May 9. Not only the well-known MSMs were wrong, it was factually incorrect. Showing multiple photos of white swans don't prove all swans are white. It proves "yes, there are many white swans" but does not say anything about the existence of black swans.--103.66.49.53 (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The news agency is credited by being listed as a source. That is what Wikinews requires. Drafters may go above and beyond requirements if they wish. In fact, it is better if they do so once in the while and not every time because listing the source in-sentence every time would make the article cumbersome to read. What is not appropriate is to demand that someone else go above and beyond requirements. IP users are not blocked from editing articles. You go right ahead whenever you want. Now respect my wishes and leave me alone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I am sure the 'WN:Attribute' page will be updated with examples and reasons for them, as a way of consensus. This may take a while, perhaps several months. Wikinews documentation has a backlog, please be patient.
There is one thing that can make this backlog shorter: writing drafts which pass the review quicker. When one can not provide steps toward this mission which is stuffed with teachers and inadequate documentation, it is best to let willing students to do this.
I think the "do it yourself", in the cases when it is a substitute for "I do not wish to learn this concept or read any of your documentation for it", can be safely replaced with zero words. Gryllida (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I've asked Pi zero about updating WN:ATTRIBUTE. He's decided not to. If you can get him to do it, good on you, but ask just once and then respect his wishes and leave him alone.
I think I've established that I did take an interest in learning the concepts and reading the documentation. They just don't say what you wish they said. You are perfectly free to propose changes to any Wikinews guideline or policy that you see fit. However, if the guidelines are changed to "Drafters must obey all demands that they change the article to fit the personal preferences of all suggestors, whether they have time or not, whether they agree with the change or not, whether the change is required by policy or not," I don't think many people will want to volunteer here.
The Wikinews review backlog is caused by the dearth of active reviewers. We simply don't have enough people. I believe you are a reviewer, aren't you Gryllida? I see from your user history that you haven't actually done review in a while. If you want a smaller backlog, the solution is in your hands. Now leave me alone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The number of teams in Samoa was actually added by me. The data was published by the WHO, but its origin was the Samoan government (via the Recovery Appeal). I have decided not to attribute it to them, as I have wanted to avoid repeating 'government' over and over again. To help the reviewer, the sources of the sentence were added as hidden text. - Xbspiro (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

<pi zero briefly drops in> Small note: I have not decided not to update WN:Attribution. I 've not yet gotten to it. En.wn has been slow to update documentation since long before I got here; from what I've heard, it's a common property of small news organizations, as their time tends to go into news production to the exclusion of time for writing about what they're doing. --Pi zero (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


Follow-up[edit]

I am afraid I have a problem with this "leave me alone". We have an important unresolved question here.

Are you comfortable writing "I corrected 1,2,3 and I did not correct 4,5,6" instead of "do 4,5,6 yourself. [I hate teachers and I do not think it is required and it is not professional]"?

This means others have an opportunity to think about asking you for help implementing the change ("I want to do this myself but I find it difficult <navigating the source, understanding the subject, finding contact info, whatever>. Darkfrog24, can you help?"), instead of face-desking and thinking that you absolutely hate these proposed changes 4,5,6. Gryllida (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Gryllida, I am quite finished. If you wish to continue discussing this, do it on your own talk page or some other part of Wikinews that does not send me an email. You've said your piece and I've said mine. Time to move on. Per your feelings, I've already told you that I usually feel your suggestions, on their own merits, are not that good but not that bad.
I answered you a long time ago: here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Abandoned[edit]

Hi. Thank you for adding the {{abandoned}} template to files that needed them. I just wanted to highlight that it is better to use {{subst:aband}} because this adds the date automatically. Cheers. -Green Giant (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Mortgage payments article[edit]

.....could probably easily be freshened up with just a bit of source re-work.....? Just a suggestion. --Bddpaux (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll look at it later if there's time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I took a quick check and didn't see much in the way of new sources for new developments, not none, but not much. I'm cool with this draft aging out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hey, happy quarantine[edit]

Pat Toomey and Clifford the Big Red Dog.jpg

Just wanted to say thank you for all the hard work you've been doing man. I really appreciate it!

Thank you, whoever you are. My job is still actually going strong, so I Wikinews when I can fit it in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Glad to hear everything is going good!

Any idea why the original poster(op) was blocked on wikinews? I see no reason provided in the pink box that shows up when one looks at the op's contributions? Or am I missing something? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The pink sections says it was for "inserting nonsesne/gibberish into pages."
OP was an IP address, so I assumed it was Acagastya not logging in again, but it looks like Acagastya's the one who blocked the IP. It could be newly minted admin Acagastya just wanting to use the admin function now that he or she has it. That seems likely especially considering the IP's last edit was deleted from the page history instead of just reverted even though Aca describes it as mere "nonsense-gibberish. It's overkill. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Boy (man?) you are quick! I did not even consider the possibility that this ip was aca himself, but you are most probably right looking at:

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.224.32.30

And here I thought editors at wikinews were supposed to spend their precious volunteer time working on articles instead of chasing imaginary ips. cheers, 14:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, there are three problems with the (frankly) mud you're slinging at acagastya. Not that admins aren't used having mud slung at them. One, nothing about the IP or its behavior offers any support for it being acagastya (the internal evidence, which I've just looked over, indicates some bored... person in Indiana lacking the imagination to do anything more constructive than randomly embed images and fart noises on various pages 'round the project; I'd say acagastya has been settling nicely into the "cleanup on aisle three" aspect of adminship, and their block in this case was quite appropriate). Two, your accusations aren't a plausible fit with acagastya's character. And three, you're not doing will on our principle of "don't assume bad faith". --Pi zero (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Ease off, Pi zero. Saying "I thought the IP who posted a NICE message on my page was the person with a history of not logging in" and "deleting rather than reverting a nonsense edit is overkill" is not slinging mud. It's not assuming bad faith. It's not an accusation. If you think it is, then you need to start holding your own posts to a much, much higher standard. I have looked the other way on a lot of mud from you, not even counting the times you claim I'm blind, stupid or both—those I call you on, as you know.
These are tense times, and I think you need to be careful not to start fights. Since you seem to think I was talking about the block, and not the deletion as "overkill," maybe you just didn't read my post carefully. You can reread it if you think that would put your mind at ease, but if it would upset you, then just go do something else. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The mud was "just wanting to use the admin function now that he or she has it", not the IP assumption. Gryllida (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't consider that mud either, Gryllida. ("Mud" meaning "an insult" on the order of calling someone a jerk but not as bad as calling them a liar.)
People, especially people who are a bit younger, tend to be a bit exuberant about such things. Believe me, if I think Acagastya's action were harmful, I would have said something to Acagastya about it. Right now, I just think it's overkill. People with a brand new tool to use tend to overestimate how often or how much they need to use it. It wears off when the newness wears off, a self-correcting problem that does not usually require intervention.
Just in case this is the point of confusion, I do NOT think Acagastya blocked their own IP account just for funsies. I initially though that the poster who put the nice Clifford the Dog picture here was Acagastya. When I said "I assumed it was Acagastya not logging in again, but it looks like Acagastya's the one who blocked the IP," I meant "so the IP is probably not Acagastya." No I do not think Acagastya went in as an IP just to test the blocking function. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Indeed "just wanting" is an insult, implying the only reason for the block is his want (and there is no other legitimate reason to.) Gryllida (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Then it seems you think it is an insult and I don't. It is also far, far less critical than the flak I've taken on this site, to which you voiced no objection.
I think things IRL are very tense and we should end this conversation now, so I'm putting this thread under WN:SLOWDOWN. Anyone may make a post in this thread so long as it is at least twenty-four hours after their last post. That should keep everyone's heads cool and words polite and considered (I do not consider your post impolitely worded, Gryllida; I just disagree with you). This does not apply to posts about articles or anything else. Just put them in their proper thread as normal. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Without you acknowledging that it is both an accusation and an insult, seeing how the person is presented in the text, we may not proceed. Gryllida (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
If the things Pi zero likes to say about me are not insults, then this is nothing at all. If this is an insult at all, then so are the things Pi zero says about me are very serious.
A high standard can work. An everyone-toughen-up standard can work. A "people are allowed to attack you but you may not even mildly criticize others" is not fine. Perhaps you think "But Acagastya is a reviewer. That makes him your boss! Lowly workers must never criticize the boss, but bosses may criticize lowly workers. Why aren't you kissing up?!?!" That is because that is not how things work here. Per Wikinews policy and guidelines, we are all equals. Per WN:INTRO we do not have a hierarchy, and adminship applies to technical tasks alone. Here is also WN:ETIQUETTE for your perusal.
Your time is better spent drafting and proposing a new, public, written and explicit rule for whom you want to submit to whom and in what way. However, if it reads, "reaching reviewer status or adminship means you are allowed to criticize anyone else you please and they are not allowed to reciprocate," then very few people will want to volunteer here.
We've had this conversation before, Gryllida. Accept that I don't want to play social games and move on. Moving on may take the form of writing a real guideline. I even did the legwork for you. Either put your money where your mouth is or call it a day. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Pi zero says things about your work without misrepresenting or attacking your person in the text. This is acceptable. Gryllida (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Pi zero both misrepresents my work and attacks me as a person. Whenever I disagree with him, he claims I have some kind of defect that prevents me from seeing underlying principles that he claims are important but refuses to write down or define, strongly indicating that no such principles exist and that they are an excuse to order people around. Maybe he doesn't realize he's doing it. In the comment I made about Acagastya, I say basically "he did it because he had a new tool and felt like it." An admin action is a public action, and if I feel it's overkill I get to say so. My opinion matters exactly as much as everyone else's.
The only explanation I have for your post here is "Pi zero says this is bad, so I must agree with Pi zero for social reasons." If you want to play pretend-boss-and-pretend-underling with Pi zero, that is between the two of you, but leave me out of it. Have fun, but I'm not playing. I decline the role of pretend-enemy.
I think you need to think about what you want from this conversation. If it is for me to think of myself as not worthy to state an opinion of others while passively accepting that whatever Master says about me must be right because it was Master who said it," then your time is better spent going to the Wikinews policy pages that explicitly state "Wikinews aspires to be non-hierarchical" and "everyone matters as much as everyone else" and proposing that they be changed.
Now leave me alone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I suppose your view is that Pi zero was attacking you, and you were attacking acagastya. Is this correct? This is a hierarchical wiki; if you remove my message, I'm taking this to ANI. Gryllida (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
My view is that Pi zero was attacking me, many times, and that I am not attacking Acagastya.
No, it is a NON-HIERARCHICAL Wiki. I linked you to the policy. This is my talk page and I am allowed to remove messages from it, especially when I am trying to prevent a fight.
There is a global pandemic on and I am not here for you to take your frustration out on me. I do not have the emotional energy to teach you why trying to force people to think of themselves as less-than is bad.
By saying "if you don't allow me to continue [let's say harassing because I can't think of another word right now] then I will take punitive action," then you are daring me to delete your comment because if I don't then I'm tacitly consenting to taking orders from you. It is manipulative and it is wrong. I'm trying to prevent a fight by drawing a painful conversation to a close.
We need formal dispute resolution. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

pangolins[edit]

Just continuing discussion from here so it does not disappear from non-admin views before we are done: I found another reason (Coronavirus: China needs to stop!) why your article is so important. Thought I would share with you. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 21:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

For my own future brain, Ottawahitech is talking about the article about the scientists who proved that SARS-CoV-2 probably went through pangolins from bats and that it wasn't related to HIV. This article is likely to age out and be deleted because the Eurekalert press release doesn't match what the scientific study says and no one in the MSM has corroborated either one. One of the sources I speculated about using cited a study that proved SARS-CoV-2 wasn't made in a lab.
For Ottawa, hm, that Kyle guy makes a few interesting points. I put the content we wanted to use in two articles on the Simple English Wikipedia: [2] [3] Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Between 3 and 10% of recovered COVID-19 patients tested positive again[edit]

Not sure if you have eard about this yet? Is it fake news Ottawahitech (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I had vaguely heard. I already took my Wikinews break from work today, but if you want to run with it I might be able to help some. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi[edit]



Harassment[edit]

This is an administrative warning. You've been harassing other active contributors on en.wn, creating a highly toxic social atmosphere on the project. Some major recent examples:

  • You accused an admin of serious abuse of their privileges, without having seen the evidence on which they based their administrative action. You thereby committed a straightforward violation of Wikinews:Never assume. When another, veteran admin examined the evidence you didn't have access to, and found the administrative action was commensurate with the evidence, you simply disregarded this.
  • When other users have raised concerns on your user talk page — which is a major function of user talk pages — if you didn't want to hear what they had to say, you would selectively remove the comments you didn't like. Not only is that short-sighted, since it discourages others from seeking to discuss things with you rather than escalating them to a higher level, it also tampers with the potentially-administratively-relevant record of the concerns raised.

You also recently responded to a not-ready review with a flamboyant (to the point of interfering with the serious function of the article talk page) response insinuating that it was extraordinary for the reviewer to base their review on project guidelines. That's the same reviewer you already owed an apology for falsely accusing them of administrative misconduct. --Pi zero (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The person being harassed here IS ME. Gryllida was badgering me after repeatedly being told to stop.
No I did not accuse anyone of anything. I made a normal comment in casual conversation. Other Wikinewsies including you personally have said far harsher things about me, including you specifically.
The comments I removed came from editors who were badgering me after repeated instructions to leave me alone. I had heard them out and we were talking in circles. Wikinews guidelines allow me to curate my own talk page.
The images of fireworks are consistent with WN:ETIQUETTE: Give praise where it is due.
The person owed an apology is me.
If you believe that Wikinewsies are required to quietly endure badgering from others, go propose a guideline saying so
Per Wikinews policy, we are all equals here. The authority given admins applies solely to technical matters. It does not mean "Once you become an admin, you are allowed to criticize others but no one may give an opinion of you."
If you believe drafters should be some kind of emotional servant to admins and reviewers, then go draft a guidelines saying so.
My participation here is not consent to abuse from you or anyone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I will now try another step in dispute resolution: Ask the community to get involved. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
You're wikilawyering; you insinuated; you have not been attacked, you've just gotten a lot of negative feedback because you've been causing a lot of problems for others. The community is already involved. And I repeat: you're creating a toxic atmosphere on the project by harassing others. I'm letting you know, in my responsibility as a an admin, so that you have the opportunity to self-improve. --Pi zero (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Scroll up. Acagastya just called me names like "ignorant." Go tell A to apologize to me and to stop creating a toxic environment. If your standard for courtesy is so strict that "this admin action is overkill" counts as an accusation and attack, as you say above, then you should make a post like this one on Acagastya's talk page.
But if you truly believe "other people may make personal attacks against Darkfrog24, who is not allowed to voice any opinion, whether negative or positive," then your time is better spent defining it in an essay and proposing it as a guideline, because it is a radical departure from the principles of this project.
Another possibility: There is a global pandemic on. We probably all know people who are sick or in dagner because they work in health care. I am not okay with people working out their anxiety by attacking me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Ignorant is a characteristic of what a person is doing, not a personal attack. Gryllida (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
No, ignorance is personal. Overkill is a characteristic of an action and not a personal attack. When you badger me for saying something to someone else, but defend other people when they say bad things about me, I feel that you are trying to turn me into some ind of punching bag. I'm not anyone's dog, little brother, or mommy to scream at, and you have to stop treating me like one. Either we all talk loud and toughen up or we all lower our voices and act delicately. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

AAA[edit]

Added a query to AAA. Please understand that being limited to talk pages is not a bin; this is the correct place to reach consensus and it is still powerful. Thanks --Gryllida (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what a bin is. Did you put this in the right place?
It occurs to me that, as an involved party, Pi zero should not act as an admin in this matter. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I meant the rubbish bin.
He will be able to share his view on this; if everyone agrees that my proposed limitations are a good idea, then they can be actioned by any admin. Gryllida (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
I saw your proposal and I find it premature. I provided a link to the water cooler discussion where I request dispute resolution.
There is a global pandemic on and tempers are high. The thing to do is follow the established process, which needs time to work.
Bottom line, locating the rule I read years ago that says Wikinewsies are allowed to curate their own talk pages would resolve this.
It would help a great deal if you apologized for continuing to post here when I told you I was not okay with continuing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
backlink. I confirm that I'm sorry for the disruption of your personal space, and you can remove this entire section if you desire; I only felt it necessary to post it here because otherwise you might have been unaware that a discussion was opened at AAA. That would have been awfully bad. Gryllida (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
You are required to notify me when you post a complaint of that kind, so you did right, excepting that you should not have made the complaint at all. I meant to apologize to me for continuing to badger (or choose another word) in the "happy quarantine" thread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
You can remove that entire section, if you desire. (In my defense, I aimed to output as few judgments as it was practically possible. I hope this is helping you with your well-being.)
I only felt it was necessary to participate in that discussion because another person seemed attacked, and there was a seeming misunderstanding (by you) of what specifically made it seem that way. I wouldn't retract my first remark there. Seeing that attempts to explain it were in vain, in that section and in the next one, I've given up.
However, I'm sorry for making that conversation too long.
I hope that, when someone approaches you with "did you attack Alice here?", you will be able to say something different from "Rob attacked me there!". This was one of the points that made that discussion excessively long; we didn't seem to really become able to get to the point of specifically what and how read out as an attack.
If I approach such a situation again, it will be in a different way; I will try to maximize the chances that I will not need to explain such things more than once, thus lengthening the conversation.
Thanks and best regards, Gryllida (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
informing the concerned editors about AAA is a rule of thumb: so that something does not happen behind their back. It is generally done by the one who creates the AAA request. Expecting one to not do that is considered going against the proper functioning of the project.
•–• 19:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

There is currently no dispute about that, Acagastya. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi again[edit]

Hi DF,

Thanks so much for your message yesterday (which I can longer locate?) Anyway I was way too tired yesterday to respond and like to apologize to you for not doing it and just to come back today to find out everything here is in chaos, or at least thats what it seems to me?

Anyway, I have discovered during my recent wiki-travels that this upset is not unique, not to you, not to wikinews, and not to the general wmf movement, but to the whole world. I don't know if this is consolation for your predicament, but I hope it is.

I am trying very hard at the moment to concentrate on covid-related issues, both on wiki and in real life. Yes it is hard to ignore the background noise and the backseat drivers, but I feel it is a matter of survival both virtually and not.

I hope when this is over we will have time to address all the issues we are confronting right now Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Since a formal accusation has been made against me, I do not have the luxury of tabling this until later.
I would like it if you gave your two cents at the water cooler. Nothing on Wikinews or basic courtesy demands that you do so, but you are certainly allowed to. I included you on the list of involved parties but didn't say what position you held.
As I said, a "no one's allowed to say negative things" rule might be restrictive but could work and an "everyone may voice their opinion and everyone toughen up" rule would work, but "other people are allowed to shout but you may not even whisper" is very, very hurtful to me. It's like that old saying "Don't fight fire with fire" might be okay, but not if you follow it with "don't fight it with water, don't fight it with foam, don't evacuate the building, stand there and burn."
If you want to talk about the thing I posted on your talk page about privately, my "email this user" is enabled. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Trump's malaria drug[edit]

Just thought I'd share with you: I was watching cnn earlier, where the reporter (a woman) interviewed Dr Wilbour Chen in regards to the drug trials they have speeded up. They mentioned one of the issues was people currently taking the drug were afraid they would face shortages if the drug is approved for covid treatment. There was mention of an interview with a woman suffering from Lupus who was taking this drug, but unfortunately I could not listen to it.

Please take care of yourself, Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I heard of that last week. It's so sad.
I've been trying to focus on things that I'm worried might get overlooked because of the pandemic, like what's happening with indigenous peoples and with strikes. I managed to revamp the article about the Mashpee Wampanoag, but I'm still awaiting corroboration of the new focal event. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Short block[edit]

I've applied a short block to your account. Per generally observed standards for blocking actions, this is preventative, not punitive; you've been spreading misinformation. You've had reasonable warning that this was a concern. If you're willing to agree to limit yourself as Gryllida has outlined at AAA, I'm inclined to simply let the block expire, and we'll see how things go. --Pi zero (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarification: I have in mind option (c) that Gryllida described, "limit partitipation only to new articles and talk pages of these articles and personal talk page but nothing else". --Pi zero (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Pi zero, you are an involved party, so you should not apply a block to my account. I also performed no disruptive action, so you should expunge the record. If you think requesting dispute resolution or participating in a thread after someone's posted an accusation, then you should post a link to the diff and own up that you think so.
A block from anyone is premature because my request for dispute resolution is under way. I must be able to participate in that dispute resolution process, and this block prevents me from doing that. It also prevents me from participating in discussion of the policy changes that you have proposed, which makes it look like you have an ulterior motive. You have created the appearance of impropriety.
Correct the situation and remove the block. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
If you actually want to prevent disruption, the answer is for you, Gryllida and Acagastya to stay off my talk page and accept that no person here has the right to abuse me or expect me to tolerate abuse. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

{{unblock|Blocked in violation of policy.

Per WN:BLOCK "Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict." Pi zero is an involved party in this dispute and should not be blocking any other involved party. I also disputed some changes that the blocking admin made to a policy, the discussion of which is ongoing. Either of these things alone is enough to render this admin ineligible to perform the block.

Pi zero, I could buy this was an oversight on your part, but correct it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)}}

Should this user be unblocked?

William S. Saturn has reviewed Darkfrog24's request to be unblocked, and the result was declined.
The reason given by William S. Saturn was: The block is justified. If the disruption continues once the block expires, the user should be blocked for a longer period. If this occurs, as I suggest at WN:AAA, perhaps the user should remain blocked for the duration of the coronavirus pandemic.
Further debate can proceed here, however, the administrator's decision may be final, and the result of administrative consensus.


Comment from blocking admin: The fact that Darkfrog24 doesn't like to hear what I have to say does not disqualify me from administrative action in the case. --Pi zero (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Pi zero, you are involved in two disputes with me right now. You create a toxic environment when you violate policy.
I've heard what you've had to say many times. You need to accept that I do not share your opinion and move on. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Pi zero is not in a conflict with you; he has in the last week limited communication with you only to the benefit of other contributors. Also you kept misleading others, and don't seem to commit to any change (such as the proposed limitations), I don't think an unblock is wanted here. --Gryllida (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Conflict #1: Pi zero has not been a disinterested observer here on my talk page. One of the posts I deleted was his. Conflict #2: The other conflict is about his proposed changes to WN:INTRO.
This feels like a strategic action to prevent someone with a habit of disagreeing with you from participating in discussions of proposed changes to policy. You should avoid even the appearance of that kind of impropriety.
Gryllida, if you think "Darkfrog24 is not allowed to voice an opinion" and "Darkfrog24 must sit still while people call D 'ignorant' and other insults," then the person in need of some limitation is you. 03:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Correcting WN:INTRO seems like a less urgent issue than resolving your dislike of authority here, which has interfered with reviewing and publishing your work, has mislead other authors, and has resulted in wiki-lawyering that has delayed review of complex original reporting. If you want to propose changes like that, you've got at least improve your timing. If it were only for the WN:INTRO correction and everything else was fine, I'd've unblocked three hours ago (and Pi zero wouldn't've blocked in the first place).
I'm not going to speak about the insults here; I am sure nobody would be fascinated by the idea of insulting you on a page which you are blocked from editing, and you will have plenty of room to converse about that, wherever it occurs.
--Gryllida (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The long-term problem here is that you think have a reveiwership or adminship grants people social privileges that it does not grant. But a global pandemic is NOT THE TIME. You are scared of the virus and trying to find something you can control and treating other people as a receptacle for your feelings in that way is not okay.
You have said your piece, now stop spamming this page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
You have said your part of global pandemic more than enough, Darkfrog24. Stop pretending you know someone else's mind. You have done that enough, and if you continue to break never assume, this will not help your case.
•–• 04:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, this is a warning: if you engage in causing hindrance to the administrative discussion, you would lose access to edit your talk page.
•–• 05:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The person hindering administrative action is YOU. Stop harassing me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Wow this is really frustrating for both of you. Quite obviously Acagastya meant your hiding of content, which Pi zero reverted. If you didn't understand this yourself, perhaps you need a friend (IRL) to assist you with communication on the wiki.
How about you move this page to "User talk:Darkfrog24/Messages"? Then it won't show notifications that much, and won't bother you as much by email. Gryllida (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Gryllida, moving all this somewhere else actually a good idea. I may come back and do that later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Longer block[edit]

You've made clear your intent not to curb the behavior that led to your last block, and indeed you even blew through my suggestion to address the matter on another page. So I'm adopting the suggestion at AAA to apply a substantially longer block, which was recommended as a preventative measure with size chosen to let pandemic tensions ease. I am, however, concerned that underlying issues will remain after six months if I don't clarify here. We're all (I hope) interested to see you settle into a constructive role on en.wn. Here are several difficulties I see in your approach to the project, which tend to interlock with each other.

Note, going into this: In recent times I've usually not been as blunt about these things as I'm about to be. Your negative reactions to criticism have had the unfortunate side-effect of discouraging honesty, and lately I've sought to say as little as possible. However, my purpose here is to try to help you with the underlying problems that have led to the block, which it seems to me I cannot do by saying as little as possible, nor by shying aware from bluntness. I am not, thereby, "in dispute" with you; quite the contrary.
  • You have tended, historically, to treat attempts to explain anything to you as either an exchange of opinions between equals, or as personal attacks. Since people passing knowledge one-to-another is the primary way knowledge is disseminated on en.wn, and doesn't fit either model, limiting things to those two models seriously curtails your ability to increase your knowledge of the project.
  • You have clearly indicated you believe you have nothing to learn about the project (well, okay, I pulled that punch: honestly, you've indicated you are more of an expert on how the project works than the entire rest of the veteran Wikinews community put together). This is a problem because it's not true. Your development as a Wikinewsie has been substantially arrested at a rather early stage in our learning curve, creating more work for the rest of us as we have to compensate. Compensating this way is something we're happy to do for newcomers as they're learning the ropes, with the hope that as they learn more the burden on us will drop to a more reasonable level. It's a problem when the level of burden doesn't drop, since the drop allows us to greatly increase our output volume over time. Some of our long-time contributors we've happily helped along even though they never fully master some aspects of Wikinews writing — happily, because they gamely struggle to improve. You've projected an impression that you're not trying to improve. If that impression is wrong, perhaps we can do something to make it look less that way; if the impression is right, that's inherently a problem that's going to need some sort of redress to allow you to function effectively on the project.
  • You said something on that article talk page with the newbie, about being qualified to teach newbies because you've been here for four years and written a whole bunch of articles. The trouble with that reasoning is, those statistics aren't in themselves a reliable measure of knowledge about how the project works. You haven't been improving much during most of that time, and correspondingly the effort by others to move your articles through the process has not dropped. The number of articles you've gotten published doesn't reflect how much compensatory extra work others put into those, nor how many other articles didn't succeed for directly or indirectly related reasons (which is very hard to assess); or to take the optimistic view, how many more articles could have been produced if that effort-drop had occurred.
  • In that incident you also underestimated the problem with your remarks to the newcomer. You made a whole series of incorrect statements, not limited to the point acagastya raised about neutrality (though that's part of it). You misrepresented what kinds of articles Wikinews publishes (no, OR does not contrast with "discrete events"); talked about "guessing" why that type of article isn't allowed when there's no mystery about it (policy and guideline violations), and incorrectly suggested the problem with the article type was some sort of inferiority of Wikinews because we're a volunteer project (rather than because of our neutrality policy); threw in a gripe about how somebody with "a journalism degree or years of working at a newspaper [... could]n't use it as a credential" (whereas such credentials even if verified wouldn't mean anything here: while some professional journalists have fit in quite well here, others have failed here disastrously because they ignored the goals/policies of the project).
  • You've repeatedly put forward professional journalism as a superior standard that trumps the Wikinews style guide. Besides the simple unworkability of any project submordinating its own style guide to the whims of contributors, it's been pointed out to you, and honestly should be rather self-evident once noticed, that we're not trying to do the same thing professional journalism sites are trying to do, so the very idea of using professional journalsim as an exemplar of what we're trying to do is a non sequitur. Wikinewsies over the years have been quite familiar with various flaws of mainstream journalism and our infrastructure seeks to do better on various of those things, which is very far from viewing msm as an exemplar.
  • On multiple occasions over the years, you've indicated that the only two interpersonal relations you conceive for a project like this are technical equals, or master-servant (a.k.a. employer-employee). Unfortunately, neither of those sorts of relationships is applicable to Wikinews. You've repeatedly claimed that everyone on a wiki is equal, which is not true of any wiki. Wikipedia makes some pretense (unsuccessfully, as some of its critics have been known to point out) of embracing some such radically egalitarian philosophy; the Wikinews infrastructure embraces individuality and deliberately nurtures awareness of the individual characteristics of each user (cf. WN:ROLE). Even Wikinews !voting on local policy (such as RFPs) explicitly factors in accumulated reputation; e.g., at the low end, outsiders are welcomed to express opinions but their opinions carry no weight.

--Pi zero (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

In other words, learning did not work, and the only venue which you supported was writing documentation. When you tried writing documentation, it seemed inconsistent and contrary to the existing interpretations or practice. When others tried to write, you would offer new interpretations, and nobody went out of their way to prioritise documentation writing over news writing. That was sad; instead of limiting your contributions to what you can do well (correcting wiki markup) to reduce reviewing burden, you kept doing what the situation did not permit you to learn (write content with inverted pyramid; without copyvio; aim to answer 5Ws; attribution; research the story; the reputation thing), and as you kept doing it poorly, it got out of hand. Sob. Sad face. I am sorry I could not help, and was only told to go away. I wish there was a working solution. Now I can only suggest to learn another language, perhaps that is a good way to position yourself among people who know something better than you so that you can practice relationships and learning there, possibly without the pain or slavery. Yes, learning a new language contains zero slavery. Please consider it. While language grammar rules are written, vocabulary is not, and neither is the culture. --Gryllida (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


Pi zero, per WN:BLOCK you should not be issuing blocks against people with whom you are in a dispute yourself. I did not see any suggestion from you on another page. I gave myself a 24-hour time out from the water cooler discussion so that I wouldn't be tempted to reply after every single post. What was the suggestion?

In writing my response to your comments here, I believe I've put my finger on exactly what has been causing all these problems:

I don't trust rules that aren't written down.

I believe we are all equals here because Wikinews policy, a rule that's written down, says so. Per Wikinews policy and guidelines, we are all equals. Per WN:INTRO, we do not have a hierarchy. This idea is not coming from me. So it's not only that the principles you seem to believe in aren't written down, it's also that they actively contradict things that are written down. "Don't believe what you see; believe what I tell you" is an inherently suspect statement.

Written policy is written for a reason. If policy exists only in one person's head, then only that one person may consult it. That person might change it to suit their mood, either deliberately or without realizing it, but it puts everyone else at so very profound a disadvantage that even a partially egalitarian Wiki has great trouble functioning. When the rules are invisible, who can tell the difference between "You broke a rule?" and "You did something I personally did not like?"

  • I disagree with this characterization of me.
  • You claim I act like I have nothing to learn, but in fact I've often asked you, "Is there policy on this? Is there a previous consensus conversation on that?" and other versions of "Is there some written reference that I could consult?" "Oh there isn't? Want to write one together?" But when you don't get an answer enough times over and over, the only thing for it is to stop asking.
  • "I do not see why someone who has been here four years and drafted over a hundred published articles (I mean myself) should not tell a newcomer how they might one day come to do the same if they choose to continue volunteering their time." I stand by that. Frankly, when you tell me that I shouldn't talk to a newcomer about a very basic idea, it feels ...it's hard to explain exactly what kind of hurtful. It feels like you think there's something wrong with me because I think of myself as having worth. This has happened many times here. It's fine for you to think you're right and I'm wrong, but you've often said things that left me thinking that you felt you were so right that my disagreeing with you is proof of some defect. You often attributed my disagreeing with you to being blind or stupid. That is why I feel personally attacked.
  • If memory serves, you once praised my instruction of a newbie.[4]
  • I have no problem with the idea that people who have been to journalism school and worked at newspapers would be more qualified to write articles containing analysis than we would be. We're amateurs or at least acting in amateur capacity. Like you say, we don't do the exact same thing here.
  • I don't think this is about the style guide. I believe you're talking about the issue with past tense last year. My decision to use present tense where appropriate was based not only on general practice in the wider world but also on common practice here on Wikinews going back years. Every reviewer I saw, including yourself as recently as the previous week, used and approved articles using present tense the way I used it. The reviewer in question speaks English very well but is not a native speaker and made a very understandable mistake, which I corrected. To all outward appearances, you immediately changed your mind to agree with the reviewer. This made it look to me that you cared more about a drafter correcting a reviewer than about producing a good article. It made it look like you felt the reviewer was owed the pretense that he or she was right, even if it was provably not so by either Wikinews practice or published-source criteria.
  • I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, Pi zero, but—again, a look at the departures lounge—that your principal problem with me is that I disagree with you about things you care about, like the way the social structure here does and should work. For example, let's say you genuinely and sincerely believe that I shouldn't be allowed to say "it's overkill" of an admin action while in casual conversation. In contrast, you actively defended that admin when he came here and called me some pretty awful names. That's not only treating me like I am not this person's equal, but treating me as something so lowly that you think it's my job to let him abuse me. That's not some non-toxic not-equals-but-not-master/slave relationship. That's "you're not allowed to criticize him but he gets to do whatever he wants to you and you must in fact hold still and let him." I feel like I came here to write the news, but there's this play going on and people want me to pretend that I'm less knowledgeable, less kind, less of a person than I really am.
  • I've looked and looked and found no written policy or guideline saying that reviewers or admins gain any special social privileges on Wikinews, like being allowed to call people names or tell other people not to answer newcomers' questions.
  • I see Gryllida has posted. I will respond: "Learning" only works when there is something concrete to learn from. "I am right and you are wrong becuase I say so" offers no opportunity for learning. On an anonymous project like this one, we cannot use our real-world credentials without outing ourselves. That is why citing policy—creating it if need be—and outside sources is so fundamental. Otherwise "I want you to learn" is indistinguishable from "I want you to be more submissive to me personally. I want to give you orders because that's fun for me."

Putting all of these things together, you say you want me to "improve" but when the rules are in other people's heads where I can't see them, "improve" is functionally indistinguishable from "become more obedient and submissive to me personally," and I'm sure you can see why I wouldn't be comfortable with that.

The answer, then, is to take those rules and put them somewhere public, like a written policy or guideline. Even if I find those rules are things I don't like, and I and others decide to stop contributing here, it would take this shadow of suspicion—that Wikinews' expectations and your own are the same thing—and dispel it. We can take "believe what I tell you" and transform it into "believe what you see."

I would like this block lifted, but right this moment I formally request that the word "misinformation" be removed and replaced with something that has to do with the discussion that took place at AAA and not Pi zero's beliefs about my statement to Charis. The word misinformation makes it look like I was lying or something, and the discussion at AAA focused more on things like tensions from the COVID-19 epidemic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Overkill" and "ignorant"[edit]

@Green Giant: I just now read your response in the water cooler thread where I requested dispute resolution. I don't agree with all of it, but I wanted input from an uninvolved party and that's what you are. From this I am extracting, among other things, 1) You do think I'm allowed to remove talk page posts by others. 2) You think I should retract the "it's overkill" portion of my statement about Acagastya. I have a question before I proceed. It is important to me.

Do you think he should apologize for or otherwise retract the "you are an ignorant" comments that he made about me, which I feel are attacks, or do you feel that he's allowed to talk do that and should do it again?

I would like this block lifted, and I'm planning a proposal, but I think I need to know the answer to this first. I also want your input on something. I feel the core problem that has caused all this conflict is that the social privileges that Pi zero seems to believe reviewers and admins are to receive here on Wikinews are not written down. The obvious answer would be to fix that by writing it all down. However, this would require work not only on my part but by the community. Even if I were to write the entire draft myself, the community would have to weigh in and there would be an approval process. I see this as in conflict with your stated belief that we have to stop paying attention to my needs and get back to writing the news. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


Working it all out[edit]

As I've explained above, I believe the answer is to work out a code of conduct that's open and written down for all parties to see. I"m just thinking out loud here for the moment...

By being elected as a reviewer or admin, the individual is not only authorized to review articles and perform technical duties but is also given the following social privileges over other Wikinewsies:

  • Drafters and other non-admins must address reviewers as Boss, admins as Teacher and Pi zero as Enlightened Master. (This is crossed out because it is a counterexample, something I think you probably don't want.)
  • Drafters are not allowed to give their opinions of admin actions except when filing a formal complaint, backed up by evidence. For example "it's overkill" is not allowed.
  • Admins and reviewers are allowed to give opinions, criticism, and personal attacks against others. For example "you are ignorant" is allowed.
  • It is forbidden to tell a reviewer that they are wrong under any circumstances. (see below)
  • Drafters are only allowed to tell reviewers they are wrong if they can present sources, previous Wikinews articles or guidelines or policy proving or at least strongly suggesting it. (see above)
  • No drafter is allowed to answer a new user's questions.
  • Drafters are only allowed to answer new users' questions under the following criteria: 1... 2...
  • Admins may, at will, tell non-admins "you are not allowed to participate in this conversation."
  • Admins may expect non-admins to behave as their personal inferiors, fully aware of their own lack of worth. For example, they may say, "You should have known that you are not knowledgeable enough to answer this new user's question," even if they have been on Wikinews for years and drafted many published articles.

Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Re-blocked[edit]


Block
You have been blocked from Wikinews for continued disruption per WN:BP#Disruption. If you believe this block is unjustified or wish to contest it, you may add {{unblock|your reason}} to this page, go to Wikinews IRC to request to be unblocked, or send a message to wikinews-l AT wikimedia org.

In particular, that last subsection shows that you are clearly unwilling to consider anything that different people have written. You and others asked me to give an uninvolved view, which I did at WN:AAA. You can disagree with it but if you were expecting vindication, you’ve asked the wrong person. @Pi zero, Gryllida, Acagastya: were blamed by you for being too involved. In order to ensure clarity and transparency I, an uninvolved administrator, have re-blocked your account for six months because of your disruptive comments after User:Pi zero blocked you. From this point on, you only have talk page access for one purpose:

  1. requesting an unblock in which you constructively address the reason for the block.

Despite what it says on the block notice, you may not request unblock on IRC or by email (which I’ve also revoked), because I prefer these things to be open and transparent (and the latter also because of the way you publicised confidential emails on your Meta Userpage). If you make any other edit on this talk page (e.g. like the ones in the above section), I will change the block to an indefinite one with talk page access revoked and we can continue on the same basis as your block on English Wikipedia. -Green Giant (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

An uninvolved view is exactly what I asked for Green Giant, and I recognize you as uninvolved. I will take some time to think about what kind of unblock request I would like to make and under what terms I would want to continue volunteering here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
See, Froggy.....? You just have a HORSEY way about you. Even your response here is: 'Let me work on my rebuttal and then we'll see if I intend to grace you all with my presence down the road.' I don't know you peronally.....I don't. But: I do know enough to say that you come across as a person with a personality disorder. When someone dares to correct you or even NUDGE YOU, your immediate response is to take on the reductionistic, hostile stance. You've written a few decent articles....you have and that is good. But: you are the kind of person around here who breaks more than they fix. Your presence here (mostly) just isn't worth the trouble you bring. I honestly think you like fighting. I hope you can look inward and maybe take a more positive stance in the future. --Bddpaux (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have re-blocked your account indefinitely. This is due to two actions on your part:

  • Firstly, I asked you to not make any edit other than an unblock request on this page but you did make such an edit. I let it go as a goodwill gesture at the time.
  • Secondly, you have contacted me by email today, even though I specifically said I will not engage in any discussions by email or IRC.
  • I have not revoked talk page access yet.
  • I have also globally locked four disruptive accounts, which appeared in the days after your last block.
  • Additionally I have globally blocked the IP range they operated in.

I am not going to insinuate that these were your accounts but suffice to say that such disruption needs to stop. Please bear in mind that your account is now within the criteria to be globally locked. Once that happens, it is a very, very long and difficult route to get back to being unlocked. --Green Giant (talk) 03:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Should this user be unblocked?

Green Giant has reviewed Darkfrog24's request to be unblocked, and the result was declined.
The reason given by Green Giant was: This appeal does not address the reasons for the block.

Appeal reason

Hello, I am appealing the change in this block from six months to indef because I believe it was made in error. Green Giant says he indeffed me because of an email that I sent to him. I think he may have misunderstood that email as containing an unblock request, which he did indeed clearly tell me not to do by email.

My email did not in fact contain or refer to any unblock request in any way. It is a request for admin/steward assistance with another matter that came up suddenly.

Here at AAA, Green Giant states very clearly that emails about matters not related to the block are permitted. It was based on this understanding that I sent the email. Green Giant had also said that I must not use my talk page for anything but an unblock request, so email was my only option for requesting help.

Green Giant also raised a concern about sockpuppet accounts, but I can assure you that I am not the person behind those accounts. Everything we do here is in public view, and it is probably someone else aware of the case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC).
Further debate can proceed here, however, the administrator's decision may be final, and the result of administrative consensus.


Here is a working link to the AAA post to which I refer above. It seems the template doesn't work if there's a diff link in it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

An incidental technical note: the following notation provides a suitable link:
{{plainlinks|{{fullurl:WN:AAA|diff=4557683&oldid=4557675}}|the AAA post}}
output of which looks like this:
the AAA post
@Green Giant: Since you have the email access, this request appears to be in your bailiwick. --Pi zero (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Pi zero: thank you for the ping. I re-blocked indefinitely because I refuse to have email discussions about anything to do with your block. This is because full transparency is needed as a result of the factors outlined in the original block message by me. You are in acrimonious dispute with three other administrators and you have had opinions from two uninvolved administrators. Your action in publicly advertising the email communication you had with a Wikipedia administrator is a clear example that you do not respect the confidentiality of emails. I am completely unwilling to discuss the contents of your emails to me.
If you require steward assistance, you can do so by making a request at Meta or if secrecy is necessary, emailing stewards at wikimedia dot org. Your block on this wiki is not a steward issue. Your two current blocks (here and Wikipedia) together make you eligible for a global lock but this will not happen unless you create further disruption.
I repeat what I typed earlier. If you want to return to this wiki, you will need to write a proper appeal addressing the issues you were blocked for and give us a cast-iron guarantee that you will not disrupt the wiki. Appealing for a change back to six months does not address the core issues. If at the end of six months you had not addressed the issues, what would stop this cycle repeating?
I understand your declaration about sockpuppet accounts but they are just a diversion from the core issues but they do not impinge on your route to unblocking. I urge you to stop all peripheral actions around this block and consider carefully the reasons for the block. --Green Giant (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)