User talk:The Rambling Man

Despite wanting to contribute here recently, it's come to my attention that some individuals in this wiki have not a single clue how to treat long-term Wikimedia contributors. I will never contribute to the articles in this wiki again, just in case someone indefinitely blocks me because someone in my family gets taken seriously ill. Disgraceful. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
Are you retired from Wikinews or not?. Also, stop trolling. We don't want more drama. --Diego Grez return fire 21:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your retired status or not, I'm going to have to agree with Diego's request and ask you to stop trolling. Edits like this are not helping the situation and I'd like to ask you to refrain from doing so.  Your standing on the topic of BrianMc is noted, and your sarcasm does not help in the least.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 21:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I said I wasn't editing articles any more. The treatment of established Wikimedia volunteers on this project is a complete joke.  In fact it's worse than that, it's criminal and disgusting.  And the elevation to some kind of Godhead of particular users which then seems to render them immortal is worse still.  This project is doomed, and should be closed down post-haste as a real waste of Wikimedia funding.  Especially as Wikipedia seems to beat this project hands-down on anything newsworthy.  Perhaps this could be renamed "Wikiolds".  You've made your bed, now you have to lie in it I'm afraid, and sniping at, misrepresenting and sullying the name of good editors should be taken seriously, not just "oh, yeah, that, no more dramaz please".  Once more, disgusting joke.  Also interesting to note that you two are both supporters of said Godhead.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Emotions are charged
I appreciate that you are upset and angry with the whole affair surrounding Matthew and you are not alone in this. Emotions have been running high, to say the least, since this started; indeed I would say that what happened on WN:AAA and his talkpage were due to emotions spiralling out of control. I think everyone needs to take a good, hard look at what happened, that apologies should be made where they are due, and that this sort of behaviour never happens again.

I realise that you and Matthew will probably never want to edit on Wikinews again and that is quite understandable. However I still believe in this project and I feel saddened that you would like to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A number of us do our utmost to ensure Wikinews carries on, despite the lack of any real sort of contributor base, and I for one will continue to do so. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your calm tones and good faith Alexandr. Unlike many of your colleagues.  I know what it feels like to try to keep a project's head above the water, and I hope you and your like-minded friends do so.  Right now I'm blown away by elements here that I've not witnessed in English Wikipedia in over five years.  I wish you luck, Alexandr, and once again, appreciate your calm approach here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alexandr's words. Just a few number of us work on trying to make Wikinews work. We are just a few and even Brian McNeil doesn't writes for long. --Diego Grez return fire 21:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand Diego. But this incident has undermined the project, as far as I'm concerned.  You may be few people, but when some experienced Wikipedia editors show up to help, one of them gets treated like total dirt, the chief instigator seems to be getting away scot-free.  Not a good vibe. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well said, Alexandr; I couldn't have phrased myself better. I can totally agree with the anger that you and Matthew are feeling right now; this is the first time I've seen Wikinews' community in such a light, and I don't like it at all. Truth be told, I think that we are taking our policy of "you can be blunt and don't beat around the bush" too far, to the extent that contributors with honest intentions are getting mowed down by people too eager to criticise. I'm already working to counteract this, and have created WN:AGF, which has before been a redlink. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to see AGF now exists here. It should be a core principle of any Wikimedia project.  And indefinite blocks are usually to "protect" the project, not to "punish" editors.  That needs to be worked out as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a nice start. I also understand that, Rambling, Wikinews has since become a madhouse. Two admins resigned, and I myself resigned my reviewer rights (I'll eventually ask for them back when all of this passes away), but don't let this make you feel disappointed or anything (this goes for you and Matthew), Wikinews is very friendly when it wants to be, but right now it seems like a whorehouse. --Diego Grez return fire 22:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood Diego. I want to see this work out positively, but up until recently, it appeared the community here weren't that bothered about the treatment that Matthew received.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please understand; we do, most of us, care. I will be the first to admit that what happened to him was shameful and unacceptable, but we're trying to make it right. Like Tempo said, we (finally) have assume good faith, and I personally hope that this incident will help the community see that maybe we need to think about the effects our actions have on others. We need to take a good, hard look at what we are and what we want to be, and right now, there's a huge gap between the two. C628 (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, maybe because he didn't said anything (because of the reasons he already said). Now we know his reasons and that makes us feel like idiots. --Diego Grez return fire 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * But the failing here is because there was no AGF here. Why would someone be indef blocked for not coming back to Wikinews for a while?  Why couldn't someone have said "Hope he's okay", instead of "he took the piss, so we're collectively banish him".  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think one of the issues here is that we try to distance ourselves from Wikipedia. We do share some things in common, but we try to do everything the opposite of what they do. I, and most other active Wikinewsies here, find WP's AGF policy to be at times ridiculously bureaucratic and preventing straightforward discussion; thus, we are much more open and honest with each other here - sometimes too much. (Probably not the best rationale, but the way I sometimes think of it.) Like I said before though, I never thought it was this bad until this Matthew incident. I guess a crisis is the best test of character, as they say. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm bemused as to why McNeil believes AGF means is synonymous with assuming sources to be accurate. This is more about how you treat fellow editors, not about how you treat sources.  I'm also bemused as to why an indefinite block was punitively handed out.  Was Matthew vandalising the wiki?  Perhaps your blocking policy is very, very different from all other Wikimedia projects?  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)