User talk:Mrmiscellanious/Archive11

So what's going on?
As I understand it, and my understanding may be wrong, is that your position on actions that you've taken on controversial stories have been within policy guidelines. -Edbrown05 04:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Therefore, there is nothing actionable that could or should be done to curb your administrative buttons. -Edbrown05 05:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And in case you are thinking that I asked the question with a "gotcha", the answer is no. I voted no on an ArbCom principle stating that administrators are expected to be ambassadors of good will. I don't think they are, I think they enforce policy and do clean up chores nobody else cares or wants to do. -Edbrown05 05:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you think a simple community vote is the best way to proceed? -Edbrown05 06:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi MrM... just wanted to thank you for doing the print editions. It's good to see that Cspurrier's work will continue.... - Borofkin 01:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the print editions while I was away
I am now back from my vacation and can resume creating the print edition. Thanks for doing it for me. :) --Cspurrier 14:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoken Wikinews
Hello - I hereby volunteer myself to read aloud the news. With a bit of guidance I'd be more than happy to contribute. Please respond on my WP userpage (User:PaulHanson) or at apriori_paul_hanson at yahoo.com PaulHanson 16:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Keeping the peace
Hey, seems you're having problems with your connection to freenode. I just wanted to point out that there is a mote, and there is a plank... if you feel the urge to write something scathing, do what you were doing before. Don't participate at all. The way I see it, users are trying to bait you into becoming more aggressive and more combative. Don't play into their hand. ;) irid:t 03:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

boiweapons
i am new here and i hope ok to publish storie? seemes to be consensus? ifno please take back. Yrtsihpos 22:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Its correct quoted
"The American administration, Condoleezza Rice, President Bush use slightly different language. They say that it is not on the agenda, but it isn't on the agenda."



international 00:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please check again international 00:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

So now what happens?
Do you want to continue to add nothing meaningful to the arbitration process concerning your status as an administrator, or even the status as a contributor on this site? Or do you want to take it to a community vote?

You have no right nor reason to interfere with persons reporting on topics of interest to them. A news story is yet loosely defined by this community. Hopefully, both you and the community will come to a better understanding of what is published here as a result of this. Your thinking on world news is highly contoversial, on local news, where the real reporting will be done, the standard you set is too high in my opinion. Respectfully, because news isn't an encylopedia, adjust your sights. -Edbrown05 06:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But more than that, and on the matter at hand, you refuse to respond to members of he community. -Edbrown05 07:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe now what happens is that you tag a story, U.S. claims of Iraqi bioweapons labs contradicted in classified Pentagon report filed on 27 May 2003, move it to 'Develop', and fail to replace the 2nd lede story on the Main Page. That action is even more in poor news reporting taste when the story was out already on the RSS feed.


 * I did of course read your comments on my talk page here, where you suggest that you are ignoring me, while in the meantime you ignored the community by not responding to requests for dispute resolution earlier, and then remain obstinate about participating with ArbCom to settle the matter. You do not think the matters will simply go away, do you?

What action steps would you want to take to resolve differences? -Edbrown05 02:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing question
Separated from the recent article and any other that could develop while this conversation might continue, I am curious why you have forced yourself into the limitation of not editing freely under the same atmosphere that every editor is entitled to. Why have you restricted yourself in that way? Octavian 18:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do that.
Your actions on Thousands rally in Columbus, Ohio, for undocumented immigrants' rights, tag-and-dash when you apparently have researched the article but choose not to edit the article, constitute a disruption of the wiki. As you are aware, disruption is a blockable violation of policy. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 19:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you fight for America?
Hi, since you have a sludge section; I decided to give you some of your own medicine and put the sludge here; since you put your sludge right into article edit summaries and article talk pages; and since you have in the past criticized me for removing your crap from my talk page; I expect you to be your usual hypocritical chickenhawk self by removing this from yours.

'''I just wonder why you don't join (or re-enlist in) the US marines and go fight for America in Iraq. That would be 1 less kid from Alabama who only joined the army to make some money and get his education paid for and who might not really want to go kill kids and women (accidentally)...so why don't you do it since you support Bush's search for weapons of mass destruction ? If all the lazy chickenshit bastards in the USA who cheerlead these manufactured bullshit wars would go fight in them, then nobody would have to go who really doesn't want to. Doesn't that make sense? Or are you CHICKEN and just like to hang back in your computer hole and keep truthful news from maybe exposing the murderers and liars you protect.''' Neutralizer 23:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutralizer, that is inapropriate/personal attack. I would suggest you don't flamebait people into flame-fests, assuming you don't want to be on the other end of a very long block. (Note I myself am not removing this, because I don't know if mrm would wish to see this or not). Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 01:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll allow it. I just won't respond to it until he can reduce it down to a respectable query.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

a Wikinews community
I don't think your definition of what is being done here meets with what my definition of what is being done here.

I believe this is a place to share news, while you you belive this is a plce to report news (authoritatively). -Edbrown05 01:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Encylopedia... I don't understand it, how it relates to Wikinews... An encylopedia needs to be authoritative, news needs to report news. -Edbrown05 03:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * News is so dynamic, and MrM, and you seem to think what is reported here is so "synthesized" that it has authority.... not. -Edbrown05 04:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You are blocked
Your comments in Talk:Flight 93 cockpit recorder played in Moussaoui trial constitute personal attacks, and are disruptive of the community. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 05:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I shall not take any of your comments into consideration.
 * What I have seen of you is nothing short of blatant bias
 * The articles you have pushed for publishing were atrocious
 * A little advice on the future, as well - if you wish to make comments, back them up with proof.
 * If you can't meet up to those qualities, then it's going to be a bumpy ride here.
 * Your little statement above makes me wary.
 * I advise you to take care of those off-site.


 * The above violations of WN:E were in response to the challenge to your ability to speak for the entire community using the imperial "We".


 * I don't give a crap what I think personally.
 * You are acting like a troll now
 * I will not stand here and listen to your slanderous filth
 * if you ever so much as make another sludging remark such as that again, I will make sure you are recommended to be blocked under the personal attacks provision for as long as policy states.
 * But as of now, I'm going to state that you cannot welcome anyone else's comments; you feel that your word is the final decision, and there is no way that any others will have any input.
 * That is not how a wiki works, and you should not call yourself a member of this community if you continue to act in those ways.
 * Step off your high horse; you're stepping on actual contributors.


 * The above violations of WN:E were in response to a wholly defensive reply to the previous set.


 * I also examined the user's contributions to the discussion and found them to be constructive. The user stated their opinion, gave the basis for why the opinion was developed, presented a further argument for retaining the current title, and made an emotional appeal - the classic rhetorical argument. A discussion consists of dozens of these. Collaboration consists of discussions in which people work toward a compromise.


 * I expect discussions to get heated, and sharp words will be used. However, your response went well beyond reasonable reactions. Thus the block. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to bring this up on the WN:ALERT; I should have brought it up there myself. I did not, and do not, feel the user's comments rose to more than a warning. Further, I do not feel an admin should allow xyrself to be provoked to a violation of policy, certainly not to a degree far outweighing the provocation. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 18:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You are blocked
You are blocked for 1 month for Site disruption: Abuse of admin privilege - block of User:Karen in violation of WN:BP. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 05:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks = block. I requested you or another admin block the individual; since you were unwilling, I took it upon myself, using the should not provision (note, there is no "can not") on blocking the user in question.  The block was for one hour - half the time I recieved for my attack.  There is nothing in policy that states you can block me for this long, and I am furious that you are not giving me a fair stance here.  If you want to protect certain users from attacks, go ahead - but I will uphold the policy here if you are unable to.  Karen's comment was an attack.  I gave the user a one-hour block - half of what you gave me - much less than what the maximum penalty is for personal attacks.  The comment made by User:Karen was a personal attack.  I frankly don't care if you don't see it as one - it was one.  As your claim as Admins should be held to higher standards, I'll resort you to the RfA of Karen.  It passed. The only "site disruption" that occurred here is you not willing to recognize the attack made - and that is extremely troubling to me.  The user has paid their due.  I fail to see how a two week block of me will do anyone any good, and dispute this block under the fact that disruption was not made.  I saw three users that disputed the proposal of a block - a block that is supported by policy.  There's something wrong with that.
 * Furthermore, I don't want any users to see this as "retalliation" for my block. What I saw was a violation of policy - a personal attack.  A one hour block should not constitute a two-week block because I acted against what some admins should do.  There is no statement where bad blocks can be used as an excuse to block admins.  This was a blatant attack against me - and I held the user responsible to a very nominal block, outside of the usual time period when they edit.  I have no spite to enact on the user - I do, however, have an issue with admins enacting policy on "admins, but not users", or "experienced admins, but not other admins".  The effort taken to make sure this one user did not recieve a block because of their action is extremely troubling, as is the responses on that user's talk page to this block, which was made in the lowest enforcement that still fit judgement for the violation.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If this block wasn't in spite, what was it than? It wasn't to punish her, as you said yourself outside of the usual time period when they edit, she didn't even know it happened t'll the next day. What is your reasoning behind it. Why? (Yes I've also got answers to where in policy it says you can be blocked for two weeks, but I find this matter much more intreasting). Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact remains that I cannot be blocked for a bad block. No policy gives permission for that to be done.  The answer to your question "Why?" is simple: I don't care who the user is.  I don't care how popular they are.  If they've violated a policy, they must be met with policy.  We do not pick and choose who is blocked or who isn't.  Policy violations are violations.  There is my reasoning, believe it or not - not any of the malice you've theorized on other pages.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But what point does it serve to block someone two days after the fact when their not online. Anyways, I doubt we will agree on that matter, and currently you'll on the wrong end of a block thats unlikely to be lifted. You face three choices now


 * 1) Wine and complain about it (by that I mean continually so the same thing over. If you want to prepare a logical argument like you've currently been doing, thats fine and probally a good thing too. What I mean is just consistantly say this sucks, it ain't fair until your talk page gets taken away)
 * 2) Do nothing and have a little vacation. Or just watch
 * 3) Use your time productivly. forgive and forget, write stuff thats useeful to the site on your talk page, find images for story's etc. This is a small wiki, people read the RC. People will notice what you put here.
 * Or possibly you'll get the comunity to lift the block. However you'll starting to get a lot of people mad, and once you start getting on that many peoples bad side, good things stop happening. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 21:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Bawolff you are making me mad. You are cleaverly placing this message as it is nearly an attack in itself. Who are you to decide when a block gets lifted? You maybe an admin, but again its not soley your decision. MrM is not making me mad at all., but you are. You go around and you nealy attack everyone on the community by making pages tyhat incite war and yet I see you getting away with what I believe is a personal attack. The way I see it you are now provoking MrM. Jason Safoutin 21:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with that notion, have noted it, and will discontinue discussions with that user until they can reform their methods here. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I may hve offended someone here. I did not mean to say that I was in charge of block/unblock. Just based on how discussion was going, it seemed unlikely it would happen. I did not mean that as a personal attack, I just wanted to say what I thought would be a prudent course of action. You are free to ignore it if you wish. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 21:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology to community
In these past months on Wikinews, I have never anticipated a single event to cause all this unnecessary mayhem on this wiki. The block log is indescribable at this time. I can't help but think that all of this stemmed from one event that I performed, and as a result of this, I extend my greatest apology to the entire community on this issue. If I had known this was the backlash, I would never have done it. After this event, the question of my return to this wiki will be debated greatly for the next few weeks. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:32, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If you go, then I go. Jason Safoutin 22:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reduced your block to 24 hours (and hopefully this isn't reverted.) I hope that this can all be sorted out civilly.  Ral315 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * MrMiscellanious issues an apology for what "one event"? -Edbrown05 02:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * An apology for "one event"... -Edbrown05 02:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Or rather, what exactly are you apologizing for, making a reciprocal block against Karen? -Edbrown05 02:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone could regard the apology of yours as being directed towards user:Doldrums when you said of the contributor: "You are a disgraceful editor" only 5 days ago. -Edbrown05 03:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case.
An arbitration case involving you has been filed. Ral315 23:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Olive branch
likewise, i am aware of your considerable contributions to wikinews and I too look forward to working with you in the future. my apologies for being less than polite, on occasion. given our somewhat touchy (yes, i'm prone to understatements) interactions in the past, it might be a good time to for both of us to dig into our bags of  wikilove. cheers, Doldrums 06:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

personal note
I understand the position you are taking here. While I am not fully prepared to agree with it, I would note that it goes a long way towards explaining some of what I consider intransigence on your part on article editting.

If I said anything more here, in addition to the above comment, it would be blabbering. -Edbrown05 18:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)