|Talk page archives|
|Sep 14 2005
Apr 13 2006
My develop vote on the Iraqi bioweapons article
Concerning this version of the article, which was current when I voted, I noted the following problems:
- Title of article was simply way too long
- This is a run-on sentence:
On May 27, 2003, two days before President Bush made public statements on these trailers, asserting that "We have found the weapons of mass destruction" and the CIA published their whitepaper detailing how these trailers were allegedly used to produce biological weapons, a fact-finding group comprised of U.S. and British civilian experts that investigated the labs concluded unanimously that these had nothing to do with biological weapons production and relayed their results back to Washington, according to the Washington Post.
- "The Washington Post" is inconsistently capitalized ("the" vs "The") and italicized.
- The paragraph beginning with "The Iraq Survey Group reported in September 2004" has a stray quote mark, or is missing one.
- Dates are formed inconsistently, some with numeric suffixes ("24th" vs "24"), some with commas and some without ("May 24th, 2003" vs "May 24th 2003").
- The last source does not properly use the source template.
These are all things I noted in a brief survey of the article. They stood out to me as cosmetic problems. They don't directly apply to MrM's objections, however, a vote for publish versus develop was called, and I felt this article needed continued development. I didn't have time to make the changes myself; I would have if I wasn't at my day job at the time. irid:t 08:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, however, the description of the poll started with
Mrm write he has "actionable objections" against this article in its present form.
- Given that, I looked to find actionable obections about the article. I can't read MrM's mind, nor can I be expected to read, in depth, the entirety of that talk page while I'm at work. I was watching the edits fly by on the IRC channel, and I checked in and saw the vote. After a brief overview of the article, I found the items I mentioned above. I said "sorry" at the end because I knew this was obviously an issue of contention. I wasn't trying to take sides, but my honest opinion was that the article wasn't ready for publishing. Perhaps if you specifically wanted information about MrM's objections, you should have held a poll where only he could respond. In any case, thank you for your work on that article. irid:t 01:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would, conversely, argue that it is not my duty to instruct people how to interpret my vote. The vote, as I saw it, only asked whether there were actionable objections to the article as it existed at the time. I said there was and I didn't believe the article was of a high enough quality to be published. The vote was started in light of MrM's objections. The vote did not say that the only valid responses were in direct relation to those objections. The fact that these things were at fault with the article was significant, were they not?
- I do appreciate your attention to this issue; it's important to maintain scrutiny of other users when it comes to collboration. What I did probably seemed to you to be a "by default" support of MrM. Thank you for not allowing the life of a sock puppet to be comfortable. irid:t 19:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I was looking over the ArbCom case regarding MrM... I was wondering what your intent was in this addition. I don't understand what you expected to get out of this. Do you expect all users to openly acknowledge this? Because I can assure you that you've also made POV edits. irid:t 03:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding my block on Neutralizer
Policy backs a 30 day block for continued site disruption with several previous warnings. Given that Neutralizer had been previously blocked 24 times, and considering his already stated intention to be unavailable for about a month, the block boiled down to a 1 week block effective after his return. Given the unprovoked nature of his attack on MrM, I felt this was very appropriate. irid:t 17:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, Neutralizer had previously established that he would not be using the wiki for a period of approximately 30 days. Given this, a 24 hour, 72 hour, or 1 week block would be pointless; he wouldn't even be around to notice. I chose the block level that would impact him, 30 days.
- Secondly, I mention Neutralizer's block history as an indication that he has previously disrupted the site a number of times and his "short term" blocks have proved ineffectual. A more signifigant block was needed, in my mind, so ensure he felt the weight of his actions.
- If you view the recent activity of MrM before the comment was made on his talk page, you'll see no significant interaction between the two users. In fact, Neutralizer had been "on vacation" during that time. I call that unprovoked. Consider also that he had written the offending statement previously on a different page, erased it, then reposted it on the talk page about 5 days later. irid:t 19:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- How's this? irid:t 20:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Editing patterns and blocked issued
I understand your skepticism in how I have issued the block against Neutralizer and not against MrM. The fact of the matter is that I haven't seen the same pattern from the latter as I have from the former. I will also admit that I hadn't read that entire talk page; I even acknowledged that elsewhere. I am talking it over with other admins, and we've all agreed that a retroactive block is not a good block. In the future, please let me know if he personally attacks anyone. He will be blocked accordingly. irid:t 03:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Again, I do want to point out that he's under investigation by ArbCom for exactly this type of behavior. Perhaps that won't amount to anything, but it has been noticed and recorded.
- Take a look at WN:ALERT for some recent developments. It looks like we're going to try employing the civil stick and nobody escapes its long, long reach. irid:t 04:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not saying the blocking is being done fairly. I simply wasn't aware of what was going on with MrM. I am saying that he's not being ignored. Neutralizer has likewise not been ignored, though I fear his activity is unprovoked on a regular basis, as if trying to incite retaliation.
- Let me be clear. I acknowledge that MrM should be blocked for his personal attacks from here on out. In fact, anyone will be. It's time to make this a policy, not simply a crusade. irid:t 15:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm interested in what you meant...
... by your comment here, "So much for the prospects of continuing to have wikinews getting the same treatment as the big news outlets when it comes to bandwidth on the ISP side." -Edbrown05 04:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
re: internet bill
I replied to your post on my talk page because it seems easier to follow the thread in one location. I've noticed the exchanges between you and Ironiridis, and thought that thread would have been easier to follow on one user's talk page, anyway, hi, and best regards! -Edbrown05 02:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where I want to respond to your most recent post on my talk page, there I suppose. -Edbrown05 09:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
- I small talked at you at the same link above. -Edbrown05 08:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment! Hopefully things will start to cool off soon.... - Borofkin 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
"theatre of war" behaviour
I expected my reasoning behind my block to be apparent, but if it was not I would refer you to Neutralizer's recent contributions. Immediately following the expiry of the block prior to mine his edits focussed on WN:ALERT, issuing demands that I considered to be an effort to turn wikinews into a theatre of war.
If how that is the case is unclear, it is the attempt, conscious or otherwise, to polarise the community of editors and administrators into separate camps who pass negative judgements on those in the other camp. Demanding blocks and other punitive measures is tantamount to asking people to get behind the barricades and start shooting at each other.
re: off-site vs. on-site
Its a try to get some rationale out of them. And someting must be made to avoid similar things to repete. There is no policys against 'cabal' stuf and I dont see the need. But when skit like this happen and it involve some of the most active and/or influental users, most of them admins, we need to sort things out. I just start with the off-site part and see if they are willing to, like Messedrocker did, explain and I will forgive and forget. international 19:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Can you explain to me how this qualifies as current news? No disrespect to the article, but this sounds like political campaign ad. Is anything about this a news event? - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- It is also Mr Murtha's opinion of the events, rather than a cited study or investigation report. While I respect Mr Murtha very much, as a journalist I would have to ask if it might be possible he might be, perhaps, biased in his interpretation of the facts. Since we do not have access to the report he is speaking about, there isn't any actual new information to report. - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Murtha is not writing the Wikinews report. What he has or has not seen is not actually news; what is released for us to know is. His comments regarding the events are also unchanged from his position shortly after the actual events, so they are not news either. In short, this article is giving Mr Murtha advertising campaign ad space on Wikinews, and I find that behaviour extremely offensive. It does not take a great leap in logic to realize that a politician's discussion with the press during an election year when the press cannot verify his comments is likely to be "spin". Failing to cover all politicians comments on this particular issue or to request comment where none has been made, would be biased, yet this article doesn't even make the slightest attempt to do so. It's the kind of poor reporting one expects of blogs but not Wikinews. - Amgine | talk en.WN 16:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Reading the sources for the article, the current article incorrectly states he is referring to preliminary reports - this is not supported. In fact, the sources specifically quote an Army spokesman who has no idea where he is getting his information.
- Given that there is no corroboration, and he is a politician - not an authority regarding this event - the article is clearly inappropriately presenting a single point of view which is not supported with verifiable sources. This is my complaint regarding the article.
Dog handler article
Neutralizer published that article, and bumped the date on it. Seeing as none of the sources were later than the original creation, I unbumped the date. Having now looked at the other, better, article I would suggest merging any information not covered in the better article, and turning this one into a redirect (thus preserving the edit history.) - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- <blink> I republished? were our edits very close in time proximity? Oh, wait, I was following up from a user contributions page, and probably hit the edit tab without looking at the final article version. <blush> I goofed, and I'm sorry about that. Would you like me to unpublish? - Amgine | talk en.WN 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Transparency is a good thing. The way ArbCom works is a good example how all users with anykind of formal power/status should work. Dont know what policys regulate Checkuser requests from wikinews side. Isnt there a side on meta where all requset have to go that make it possible for anyuser to check afterwards? We must fix policys for this and start to work with ArbComs also so this latest thing dont repet itself. international 22:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
are you ...
also what's the deal with an article (Second fire in 24 hours hits Muslim building in the Netherlands) having only a foreign language source? Doldrums 18:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
check user idea to resolve dispute
Heres an idea I had to perhaps resolve the chekuser issue. If someone thinks someone is a sock, they list them on the appropriate page (providing the reasons for their suspicions like they do now). They then have to wait for three other people to agree with them that the chek should be preformed before a chekuser can be preformed. If someone thinks that using chekuser would be inapropriate in the situation, they can oppose the check. one oppose takes away two supports. (so if you have one oppose, you'd need five supports to go through with it). the check users have to wait at least 12 hours before preforming the check so people will see it. Just an idea. [note: I cross posted this on user talk:International] Bawolff ☺☻ 02:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
May I nominate you for adminship? Nyarlathotep 09:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- k, cool, no worries. :) Nyarlathotep 13:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for voting on my RfA. Unfortunately a consensus was not reached. Anyway, thanks for voting. MyName 01:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, this message is the same for everyone :)