User talk:Geofferybard

Late addition: Thanks to those who tried to at least mitigate these relentless, inappropriate blocks and deletions. Thor, please stand down and allow third parties to mediate. It is a shame I am in court observing a major trial and would, otherwise, have been preparing to file a story on this case for Wikinews. But no.

Whoa- I really have to object to Thor (Barking\fish) blanking both my userpage and my talkpage. Furthermore I am IP blocked from Wikinews dispute resolution. What is the point of that?

Comment: Firstly, please do not accuse me of something I didn't do. I removed one link from your userpage, which was a link to a blog site, and I had nothing to do with blanking your talk page whatsoever. Secondly, if you look below in the massive amount of stuff already here, you'll see that i stated quite clearly that I was not prepared to handle you any further, as you'd called my integrity into question. It is the decision of any admin what to block and how long for. That is the only "policy", the rest are guidelines, nothing more. Finally, you weren't blocked from dispute resolution, if you'd care to view the block template, there is an email address in there which you can send mail to for unblock requests if you're blocked here. BarkingFish (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This unbridaled assualt on my communications is clearly not supported by a consensus among the administrators and it is really a most peculiar phenomenon. I am proposing to improve the process after a clearly dysfunctional series of failings in the handling of my article on the Fukushima emergency response and as the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished. What gives Thor the right to unilaterally classify my attempt at achieving an unblock appeal as "not in good faith" and then allows him to destroy not only my talk content, talk page access but also my userpage. The latter had a writing sample, only, and he contends that it constitutes a "blog thing". Lots of people line to all kinds of "blog things" from their user pages. And if he wants to intrude onto my userpage with a derogatory assessment the process is to warn first, not to delete/block.

This whole episode really needs to be looked into by administrators. I suppose I have to anticipate that every public access IP number in my locale may be blocked if Thor wishes to continue his aggressive campaign to thwart my good faith attempts to facililitate a review and possible reforms in the Wikinews process. Where does that lead us - to a separation of WikiUSA and WikiBritain? For it does seem to me that there is an overt grab for power and a desire to hamper legitimate Wikipedia activities. Is there no respect for collegiality and intellectual honesty? Is the WMF porject, and perhaps others, to become reduced to a simple cyberwar for the sake of cyberwar? I have to ask that Thor cease and desist.Do not block my accounts and IP's without compliance with Wikimedia policies and procedures. Do not arbitrarily revert and blank my work.

Furthermore, I ask that Thor/arkingfish please recuse yourself from all further adjudication or administrative activity regarding this account or, de minimis, this dispute. Let's leave this to univolved third parties. Or the whole vision and dream of WMF will have become reduced to a mass of selfish, egoistic rubble. CONTENT RESTORED, Thanks to admin who at least restored access to this page:

BarkingFish has reviewed Geofferybard's request to be unblocked, and the result was declined.
The reason given by BarkingFish was: Two wrongs don't make a right, Geoffreybard. Your block was reduced by one of my colleagues to 24 hours - what Brian McNeil said to you is one thing, your attack on him was not welcome in response. If someone attacks you or says derogatory or inappropriate things about your work, you're fine to complain about it, but you don't attack in response. Your request for unblock is denied. Go have a coffee and come back when you're feeling more relaxed and open..
Further debate can proceed here, however, the administrator's decision may be final, and the result of administrative consensus.

BarkingFish (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wikinews

Getting started as a contributor How to write an article Pick something current? Use two independent sources? Read your sources before writing the story in your own words?. Do choose a unique title? before you start. 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. 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, Geofferybard! 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.   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 Neutral point of view Cite sources Writing an article Content guide Style guide Reviewing articles

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 The Water Cooler The Latest News The Newsroom Articles for deletion Audio Wikinews Recent Changes

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.

{{unblock|Still blocked? Hmm. Well, also, I had written up a concise resume brief for my User page outlining what I thought needed to be gone about differently. What is the point of blocking my own Userpage? Unfortunately, in the shock of being blocked - a first, despite almost six years now on WMF - I lost that write up. There is disproportionate concern here that hitting a mildly sarcastic note is sanctioned by what is really a form of censorship and the really just beating up on my work, as though it was nothing but a garbled sophomoric mess, is the perogative of "old timers". The remark in question does not constitute a "personal attack" it was a suggestion that the other user was being grossly insensitive to a group of men who had risked their lives. There is not always necessarily a "nice" way to make that point. At any rate, do what you will, but if I am subjected to three days of suppression on this basis, I doubt you will ever convince me that you are fair. Cheers.}} -- 03:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

BarkingFish has reviewed Geofferybard's request to be unblocked, and the result was declined.
The reason given by BarkingFish was: You're only blocked for a day, my colleague Mikemoral saw to that. However, I do feel that what you said was a personal attack, and my rationale remains. Sorry, I'm not here to be fair, I'm here to enforce the rules based on what I see..
Further debate can proceed here, however, the administrator's decision may be final, and the result of administrative consensus.

BarkingFish (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

{{unblock|I wasn't planning to continue this discussion however the block is illegal. You are supposed to warn and educate. You did not do that. Also, this was not a "personal attack", if anything I was the one subject to a snide derogatory assessment of all the work I put into the article. Please reread the rules and review this file and you may recognize that the proper procedure would be to issue a warning, at best, and presuming the mild sarcasm to which you so strenuously object is even within the parameter of what is considered to be improper etiquette. Also consider that since my edits are all geared toward an operational reform your excessive force is quite unhelpful to the common goals we all supposedly do still share. Are you someone who is capable of admitting that you overstepped your authority? If so, and you acknowledge that yourself, here, rather than on arb, you will be accorded respect as a person who is willing to acknowledge error on their own part. If I have to go to arb, I will win, because the block is clearly not warranted in this situation. I have about fifteen minutes more to devote to all of this and that will be it. For the sake of the honor of Wikinews, this block should not last another ten minutes. Seriously. You are like a cop who is tasering and I am asking you to stop.}} Geofferybard (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your request for unblock will be handled by another editor. My block is NOT in breach of the blocking policy, the notes there are for guidance - read the first line - "It is up to admins to use their discretion to decide when to block, and how long for". I did what I felt was right in the situation, and I am not prepared to handle this any further. BarkingFish (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Diego Grez has reviewed Geofferybard's request to be unblocked, and the result was declined.
The reason given by Diego Grez was: I stayed (relatively) out of this situation, because it does nothing but hurt the project. I am not convinced with all of this testament you have typed here, invoking rules from another project won't help you get rid of the block. Instead, seeing that you are obviously not going to change for good, despite our continuous attempts to make you (force, maybe?) to do so, I am going to extend this block to indefinite, I'm sorry. I'll make it in order to prevent further drama, and of course, you will be able to appeal it if you want, I won't take part of discussions regarding you anymore, if that makes you feel comfortable. Take a short vacation from Wikinews. And by the way, weren't you going to leave the project after all? You don't seem to have the intention. :).
Further debate can proceed here, however, the administrator's decision may be final, and the result of administrative consensus.

--Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Geoff,

Genuinely sorry I couldn't review this. I went out the door before you posted on my talk this morning (I'm on UTC) and was away in the real world until then. I only ever have time for a quick look into Wikinews first thing. A shame nobody has gotten to it yet, I'll take a look now. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Just read your post on here. I felt as you do originally, but now I value the place. My original complaint was much like yours - where's my editor! Mattisse (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

P.S. My articles on the Japanese crisis were much less ambitious than yours.

• Japanese tsunami impacts California coastal town
• Conflicting reports, mounting fear, over Japanese nuclear disaster
• Japan raises severity level of crisis; efforts to cool damaged nuclear power plant continue

The key is to have sources they can check easily. Mattisse (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

NISA and IAEA are about as easy to check as possible. If they didn't figure out that you need to scroll down the page to find the relevant news release then there is not a usable reviewer capacity at Wikinews and the site is a complete waste of resources. It could be remedied if Wikinews were able to review the mishap, recognize that its process was flawed, and institute appropriate modifications of its policies and procedures. But based upon some of the spuriour remarks which have been made, and the simply ridiculous basis for failing the article, I don't expect the institutional culture here at Wikinews to be capable of evolving and meeting the WMF standards. It is an overly controlled bureacracy which does not tolerate newcomers who might rival the ego-driven power of its old guard. I would be better off contributing my writing and news reports to the Chinese Central Committee or to Pravda. Seriously.

I do appreciate your sentiment to support my case but your support would have been more useful at http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance#WIKINEWS:_A_big_disappointment and going forward, on a review of this matter pertinent to a modification of the status quo to enable this site to function properly. As it stands, a verifiable, timely article on a very important issue was stomped while a pathetically incorrect version of the same events held court for several white knuckle days. What a shame.

Geofferybard (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'd like to work with you on writing an article about the Fukushima power cable status, but not sure where to begin with the article you originally wrote. Would you prefer to work from that framework and sources, or start anew? - Amgine | t 16:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Considering the reviewers' mishandling of the article I did write, I can't see myself participating any further in coverage of internatinal breaking news at Wikinews. They dragged their feet for so long I published the article CCC on Japan Indymedia, and the Wikinews then failed it as a "copyright" violation. This demonstrates that they don't know what a CCC license is, and they also overlooked the fact that I was the one who published it CCC. Since I had simultaneously submit, and disclosed that fact, it would have been legal for Wikinews to publish the story even if it was not CCC. Just, ridiculous.

A second batch of misconceptions plaguing Wikinews was the failing of the review on the basis of verifiability. That is a consumate piece of bad work on the part of Wikinews. I cited the IAEA itself, one of the most authoritative sources on the planet, but obviously the reviewer simply neglected to scroll down the IAEA website where he would have seen the sourcing statement in black and white. Lacking a clear cut administrative mea culpa and an action plan to modify its practices, Wikinews will not have any further contributions under my byline. Geofferybard (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Actually I wrote my adieu to Wikinews on the discussion page at http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:Fukushima_nuclear_cable_has_not_been_completed,_IAEA_clarifies. I could not be more put off. These reviewers are obviously more concerned with maintaining their personal monopoly than in actually allowing writers to report here. I won't be participating any further unless there are some drastic changes and I doubt seriously that Wikinews will be up to revising its policy and procedures. I can't take it as a credible opportunity to publish, not the way things are. Geofferybard (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry about you feeling mistreated, and therefore, I apologize on behalf of our community. Our processes are being reviewed; there is a lack of people reviewing (and publishing) articles, I'm really sorry your article was never published. Your effort is thanked very much, really. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is not a matter of my feelings. IMO WIkinews needs to investigate its handling of this submission and if it finds that the review process erred it needs to make a finding to that effect and issue a guideline to prevent it from happening again. Geofferybard (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked from Wikinews for personal attack / offensive comments directed at another editor (by User:BarkingFish). 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 wikimedia ● org.

C628 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with this block. I've seen far, far more insulting personal attacks thrown around on this site on a daily basis than this that go by without even a comment. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am offline for at least 16 hours now so this needs to be forwarded. I will seek a retroactive nullification of the block if there is no adjudication. Geofferybard (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

SUMMARY: The block is illegal and contrary to the emerging consensus that I was a valued newbie owed something better than I got from WN reviewers. I don't know that even a warning was indicated, certainly nothing occurred warranting a block. I am a six year WMF contrib never blocked previously. I was engaged in working with other editors toward developing a review and recommendations. One editor had made several derogatory remarks contrary to the consensus, demeaning both my work and the heroism of the Fukushima emergency workers. The blocker is concerned about a slight tone of sarcasm I made in reply to a really insensitive old timer. He should have been happy making a warning. Because he blocked, he is in violation of policy and it is the proper role of administrative review to lift the block and I would hope to also adjudicate the block as not warranted in its inception.

GREETINGS: I was subjected to a block in violation of policy and think that all parties would be served if the block is lifted immediately. This is particularly the case because the block was made at a time when I was busy soliciting feedback for a review of the rejection of

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_cable_has_not_been_completed,_IAEA_clarifies.

In my opinion and in the opinion of several other editors the handling of that submission was quite flawed. The reasons given were flatly at variance with readily verifiable state of affairs. I did not respond with acrimony, whatsoever, but rather with an acknowledgement to my supporters and the suggestion that there should be a review of how the process failed and measures which could be taken going forward.

As the record reflects, the sourced, easily-verifiable article languished in the To-Be-Reviewed que for days while a flatly incorrect version of the same events occupied Wiki News Main Page and, later, further down on the newswire.

This crusade of mine was clearly intended to derive a constructive benefit to Wikinews, WMF, journalism and the pursuit of Truth by diagnosing a dysfunction.

As often happens in such instances, there was something of a pile-up in which another editor broke with consensus and trashed my work. Fine and good, maybe it was just a lousy piece of garbled sophopmoric rubbish. Be that as it may, I disregarded the suggestion that the article was somehow poorly written, which was without merit and perhaps intended as a provocation. Alternatively, maybe it was schlocky writing on my part.

All of that was beside the point, but what is at issue here revolves around the critic who took issue with my characterization of what is known as the Fukushima 50 as "heroic".

If one can still find and read my unblock request, you will see that I am a former member of the Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers Union. I regard these men as heroic. I find it offensive, actually, highly offensive, that anyone would deny them characterization as "heroic".

But if one is so attuned to the cold, clinical and calculating pursuit of nuetrality that they would drain the human interest in heroism from a breaking news story which has the whole world at the edge of its seat, I can live with that.

However, I should have the right to address the issue. It is not a "personal attack" on my part. The block did not specify exactly which aspect of my reply was specifically faulted, and I am entitled to an exact statement thereof. This is particularly the case in that I made two replies, one on the article talk page and one on my talkpage. The blocker apparently did not view the totality of the situation nor read both of my replies but latched onto one little phrase which could arguably be determined to register a slight tone of annoyance on my part.

It is not Wikinews policy to block, censure, censor, disable contributors for a first offense of somehow making a more established editor feel somewhat uncomfortable after engaging in an unbridled biting-of-newbies Template:WP:BITE. It is our policy to ENCOURAGE colleagiality, including collegiality in the face of biting. The means is by warning not wholesale IP blocking.

IMHO this is a no-brainer. This is not "personal" on my part, it is professional in that I am advising a younger person that he is being very disrespectful of workers whose lives are in the balance. Nor is it an "attack". Just a mild suggestion that he examine his own self before criticizing in the harsh, almost gleeful manner with which he dismissed hours of work on my part and hours of work on the part of the heroic emergency workers.

I would feel no shame whatsoever, for myself, if the record were to reflect that the one and only time I was ever blocked, after six years on WMF (Wikidgood=first UID), was for a somewhat sharp retort to someone who took issue with my characterization of these men as heroes.

Nor would there be opprobrium for that, directed towards myself.

Rather, the opprobrium would attach to Wikinews.

Please, for the sake of journalism, lift this block asap, and if not, then retroactively. I would want that even after the block expires; I have support from several other editors, already, the block is NOT in accordance with policy, it disrupts fixing the process which is what I was engaged in and worst of all, might bring disrepute to Wikinews,which is something I do not want.

What I want is a relationship of mutual respect where I can get news out.

I was trained in journalism in the nineties at UNCover which worked with the United Nations Department of Information. I have filed stories with hard copy and online news agencies covering court (including capital cases and Gore vs Bush, environmental and political reporting.

If you google my name enough you will find scores of articles I have written as well as extensive testimony to government agencies at Federal and state and county levels. You really should want to attract writers with that level of background, not kick them so hard so early.

Exhibit A This user, Geofferybard has requested to be unblocked per the Wikinews Blocking Policy. (block log | autoblocks | unblock (remove global block) | contribs)

Request reason: "This is exactly the opposite action which Wikinews should be taking in this case. Brian made very negative remarks about my work in a situation where other editors were apologizing to me for Wikinews's rejection of a properly sourced, timely article on really an incorrect basis. Brian, to whom I put in the time to provide a detailed reply, made very derogatory remarks about the article which IMO were very inappropriate. It is an emotional topic, and as a former member of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers it is I who has the legitimate right to take offense. There was a certain tone of sarcasm in my suggestion that he owed the Fukushima 50 better, but that does not warrant blocking the account. The block is bad for Wikinews because my posts are all lobbying in an attempt to get Wikinews to review the suppression of my story. At the very least, you should confirm that that is the putative offense on my part because it is not impossible also that you are attempting to suppress my lobbying for a review and a reform of Wikinews Policy and Procdures. There also appears to be a conflict of interest in that the blog message is signed apparently by one of the authors of the old article which my article would have abrogated. At the least, an admonition or warning would have been appropriate. If you lift the block, that would be a step toward common journalistic goals, otherwise, it is an excess use of force, would be recognized as such, probably, on other WMF, and would further dim prospects of a suitable response to the controversial suppression of this news story. It is up to you now to do the right thing."

Exhibit B Note also the comment by Tempodivalse: 8 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this block. I've seen far, far more insulting personal attacks thrown around on this site on a daily basis than this that go by without even a comment. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

First off: wow is that ever a giant block of text.

I wouldn't have issued this block, and I'm glad that it was reduced to 24 hours. Geofferybard: as you can see from the Giant Block 'o Text™ on this page, there is disagreement among admins as to whether or not you should have been blocked, and, if so, how long the block would be. I know that being blocked when you don't think you deserved it stings, but at this point I think I'd just shrug it off and move on. Oh, and about Brian, he's often a bit acerbic, so you have to keep that in mind when talking with him. That's just the way he writes. He (normally:P) doesn't mean anything... longterm by it. Gopher65_talk 17:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• I would agree with the above. Geoff's comments were not as harsh as Brian's, and neither comment was particularly bad. I wouldn't block or even warn over on en.WP, which is far far far stricter on that sort of thing. (Yes, I am an en.WP admin, yes, I recently did block for personal attacks over there). Whilst you were a touch distasteful, Geoff, so we all are. I disagree with the substance, but in terms of it being wrong to post? No, I wouldn't say so. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, it was not a best practice for me to invite Brian to altruistically assume risk, all journalists, as such, do so. Characterizing that as "a touch distasteful" does not in any manner strike me as unfair, although I am not quite sure I would precisely concur. Please note that when I was a member of the Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers, three of my union brothers were killed in on-the-job accidents. I fear for the emergency responders at Fukushima, and IMO it would have been best if the appelation "heroic" had been uncriticised, certainly not enumerated as a cause of Article FAIL. Far better it would have been for me to reply, simply, "Gosh, Brian, doncha think journalists have the license to call these folks heroic..."

I would have no problem had Thor issued a WARN for the tone of my reply to Brian BASIS:IMFLAMMATORY. I do not claim that his original intention was sullied by lack of good faith. But the escalations were unwarranted, and still, the first and second blocks were contrary to policy, as were the outrageous page-blankings, which appear to be retaliation for making a BLOCK APPEAL. Wikinews would be best served, IMO, by an

(1)Arbitrator's Determination that the blocks were (and are now) illegal under Wikinews policy, without necessarily a determination as to whether a WARN was in order (Let that dog sleep); (2) a determination that the Article FAIL was unfortunate and probably unwarranted.

What I must however strenuously object to is (3) original Block of even the User Talk Page, which was promplty reversed by another admin, (4) diversion of my post to Dispute Resolution back onto User Talk Page, which amounts to a BLOCK of DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACCESS. WHat is most inappropriate, even alarming, however, is (5) blanking of the User Talk Page, including the Block Appeal, (6) Blanking of the User Page, which appears to be itself not justifiable as in any manner in good faith (7) the spurious and imflammtory contention that the basis for blanking of both pages is that supposedly they are not in good faith. There is no factual basis for that contention at all, it is an administrative abuse which should not go unchallenged. WP:GOODFAITH is assumed, and no admin has the legitimate right to arbitrarily deem otherwise. Might does not make right.

On the other hand, Thor probably had every right to issue a warning,if, in his honest opinion, it was warranted, but it would have been classy had he also issued a reminder of WP:BITE to Brian. As it states at the top of the Dispute Resolution policy, a warning and ONLY a warning was permissible, if even that, and note that it states that there will not be a block without a prior warning. The situation deteriorated after that and remains in a state of Block-Contrary-to-Published-Policy. I am grateful at the community's stepping in and objecting and rolling back some of the excesses, but IMO it would be better precedent at this point for someone to overide the Block because I have made out a clear case which has not been given a rebutal.Geofferybard (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

(8) UNBLOCK USERPAGE requested; Basis: was contrary to policy and persists. Unrelated to original block. The block ceates APPEARANCE OF IMPROPIRETY and appears RETALITION FOR EXERCISE of RIGHT to appeal original block and additional actions directed against user action 19:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

You have already "had a go" at myself; I have asked other administrators to leave your block in-place for the time being, but agree that you should be able to edit your talk page. That last point with two qualifiers.

The first: you have some patience and actually accept, although perhaps overly harsh, your initial block was per wikinews policy. The requisite "efforts to educate" were by means of failed peer reviews containing links to relevant policies which I see little to no evidence you attempted to learn.

Second, and, yes this is partially in response to your grossly insulting and ignorant aside suggesting I familiarise myself with a particular dictionary definition, is that you learn the meaning of the word pleonasm. Apply it ruthlessly in any future comments in this particularly disruptive display you've engaged in. Or, better yet, keep quiet and accept patience is a virtue; your block will expire.

Now, a few other comments:

• You've been most disruptive in a very small community, please desist from doing so. Your remaining block time would be better spent reading content policies and the helpful essays myself and others have written.
• I am a bureaucrat on this project. These days I'm less inclined to devote the time I have to in this case to putting a stop to highly disruptive behaviour. However, I will point out a past event that you're the perfect example of: When I resigned from the WMF Communications Committee, I cited the reason "cultural insensitivity". You, and a substantial number of Wikipedians, assume Wikipedia rules the other projects. It does not. Do you visit other countries and shout at them that they should learn English? That is what you are doing here.
• Whilst I should be working with some of my Canadian colleagues on the imminent fall of their government you, perhaps unfortunately, perhaps well-deservedly, are going to have your actual work here carefully critiqued per Wikinews policies, standards, and conventions. That is to say, your entry here as an "I'm a Wikipedian! I'm entitled to have whatever I write published instantly, and without criticism!" debunked.

Lastly, don't ask what I think of most Indymedia articles, you might get even more upset. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is available here now.

Noting the time it took to produce, and detail-level, I would welcome a brief comment as to whether this, and this alone, seems fair and reasonable. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem.Geofferybard (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

New York Court of Appeals Makes Key Finding on WWW copyright law

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -

A potentially important ruling by the New York Court of Appeals on Thursday set a ground rule for copyright law regarding the world wide web in the USA. Penguin Group vs American Buddha asks the court to decide whether the case should be heard in New York, where Penguin is located, or in Arizona, where American Buddha has web servers located. The court found in favor of the Manhattan-based plaintiff, which means that a greater burden of time and expense will fall upon companies who are accused of copyright violation. Conversely, it will be easier for aggrieved publishing houses to sue.

The complainant, Penguin, is a major publisher, which alleges violation of its copyrights to "Oil!" and "It Can't Happen Here" , both by Sinclair Lewis; "The Golden Ass" by Apuleius, and "On the Nature and the Universe" by Lucretius. American Buddha purports to be a non-profit "online library" with servers in Oregon and Arizona. According to an earlier lower court's order, it operates to "encourage and facilitate the downloading of unauthorized copies of plaintiff’s copyrighted works by the general public". That court had dismissed the case on the basis that a New York court did not have jurisdiction over online activities in other states, a finding overruled by today's order.

In the age of the ubiquitous I-Pad, judges are confronting a rapidly expanding caseload of internet piracy cases. "The digital environment poses a unique threat to the rights of copyright owners ... digital technology enables pirates to reproduce and distribute perfect copies of works - at virtually no cost at all to the pirate," wrote Judge Victoria Graffeo in an opinion (This opinion should be linked and cited as a source, below.) which is legally binding in all states of the US Second Federal Circuit. which includes Connecticut and Vermont as well as New York. "The injury in this case", the court held in that case (assuming it is a different case from the decision this article is about), "is more difficult to identify and quantify because the alleged infringement involves the Internet, which by its nature is intangible and ubiquitous."

Traditionally, it was only possible to bring a lawsuit in the state where the injury, in this case copyright violation, actually occurred. That state of affairs muddled pursuit of internet pirates and was ended in the Second Circuit. However, courts in other Federal Circuits, though not bound by today's decision, may be influenced by it. Geofferybard (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Geofferybard: I'll help out here, and can move it later. - Amgine | t 19:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

There's a fairly substantial problem with the lede, here, Geofferybard. To begin with, it's speculative. "A potentially important..." isn't acceptable because it speculates on the future, and because at root it is an opinion. An opinion is fine as long as it is ascribed to a specific person who has espoused it; it's an NPOV violation otherwise.

I might be faster to work on this if you joined IRC so we could collaborate in real-time. - Amgine | t 20:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

WELL YEAH its actually OR too, or instead. Geofferybard (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, you see, en.WN does not publish opinion as OR, either. We ascribe opinions or points of view of others, but we do not express our own. - Amgine | t 20:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I got that. Isn't that apparent? We have WP: GOODFAITH (which BTW is not necessarily taboo oon other WMF) we should also have WP:NOTIDIOT which is assume the other party is NOT-AN-IDIOT. That should be flat done presumed granted. [Triplasm alert]. I was wondering if that would squeak through. I survived a grueling law school class on this very topic of jurisdiction, and I understand that if I want to quote myself as an expert opinion, the place for that would be IMC. But for obvious reasons, I am in concurrence with Brian about IMC and would rather work Wikinews, where, de minimis, my suggestions are heard. Too bad some may regard them as "disruptive" that is really not the case. We need good policies and we need an open door to discussions particularly when someone feels aggrieved. Telling people to be quiet and suffer in silence may have fit the 15th century church, or contemporary Beijing News, or the News Room of a Rupert Murdoch set up, but nuff said. I am having trouble getting an IRC connection. Go ahead and edit out my OR, POV fix it up and paste it up its my writing not (C) viol.Geofferybard (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

<undent>
Actually, that's not possible. There are no sources listed. In order to be considered, every factual statement needs to be sourced. The original reporting notes, to be added to the talk page, must comprehensively describe the research, interviews, and communications used to collect the basic facts, and of course must cover the unexpected factual statements in detail.

Furthermore, the article is not arranged in a journalistic fashion. It should address Who did What, Where, When, and whenever possible Why and How. This particular article *may* have these, but they're not clear. Is Judge Victoria Graffeo the judge in this particular decision? - Amgine | t 20:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately I've run out of time to work on this today. If you look above you should see I've added some inline comments (in green text) to the article, as well as done a number of copy edits and recast a few sentences. You might want to merge your new lede into that section. Notice that two returns create real paragraph breaks in the Wikinews software. Best of luck! I will check back here in about 6 hours. - Amgine | t 21:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

No not at all. There was no warning whatsoever. The complaint which provoked the over-reaching block was in no manner warned-of. All of these remarks that you seem to think were implied by "links" were entirely related to the article itself and nothing whatsoever to do with the alleged basis of the block. Zero connection between the two.

I am appalled that you contend that any of the remarks about the article in any manner constitute a "warning" related to the block. This should be obvious. It seems that you are still annoyed, either about the original matter, or something else. Be that as it may, it does not change the fact that there was no warning prior to the block, there were only editorial remarks about the form and content of the article submission.

If you really want to try to streeeetch the definition of "warning" that much, you might as well erase the policy requiring a warning, altogether, because when stretched that far, warning really means nothing, and it means everything that anyone with administrative privilege wants it to mean, and the whole wiki becomes an exercise in appeasement and cronyism.

I am not saying it is that. But it could degenerate into that, if this matter is not suitably resolved. A warning needs to be (1) clear, it needs to be (2)specific, and it needs to be (3)identified as such, ie., that it is a warning which could lead to sanctions, such as a block.

In fact, warniong templates contain bold exclamation marks, and they are done with the somewhat alarming colors of red white and black. They are made that way for a reason - so that people are aware that they need to engage in some introspection.

The so-called "warnings did not meet any of those three tests. No warning, no block. This is error. It would be best for the sake of common shared goals, which apply despite the fact that I am "from" Wikipedia, or Indymedia, or the states, if we would settle the record that warnings must be, in fact, warnings, unambiguously recognizable as such. I trust you would agree. PS the name is Geof. Geofferybard (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• You seem to be single-handedly rewriting site policy. So far you have cited a lot of Wikipedia policies - which count for not - and claimed that WN:BP requires warnings. It doesn't. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  To be fair, WN:BP does say "Admins should only [block] as a last resort - efforts to educate must be made first, followed by warnings." However, it's not clear in the policy to what that refers to or to whom it applies. My interpretation of that passage is that warnings should be made, but others might not necessarily agree. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • "ignore all rules" might apply here, plus the blocking policy contradicts itself. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Most policies contradict themselves, as well as with IAR, which people can choose to invoke whenever they don't agree with a policy. (I've been lobbying for clearer rules for ages for this reason.) However, IAR says only to ignore "if a rule prevents you from improving Wikinews". Is blocking a user improving the project? Tempodivalse [talk] 21:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • In this case he was planning to leave Wikinews anyway. Since then, the block didn't improve and worsen the project. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 21:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a policy that, adding to the three tests for an adequate warning, above, the following:

4) After warning there must be indication that warning is disregarded or additional violationi. Even if there is a warning, it should not be pretextual for an immediate subsequent block w/o further misconduct.

Note: clearly Brian is a good editor and I am sorry that my words carried such a sting. I did not have a clue really what the specific perceived insult was. Being told to look up a word when you are a bureacrat on a potentially leading website is probably not your favorite thing. But yeah OK I hereby and only now am warned. Being told to look up words is WNewsP:CONDESCENSION. Got it, Rodger,understood. Geofferybard (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Warnings Policy guideline recomendation (5) It is favorable if receipt a WARNING is acknowleged. (a) Latitude should be granted to the warnee, but it is favorable if the warnee concurs that the the warning is or may be appropriate. (b) Such a detailed acknowledgement may also contend that the intent or force of the warned-against behavior was misconstrued.

Application to the "instant" case - only now is condition given as item numbner (numeric citation needed) - acknowledged, because only now was the warned-against behavior SPECIFIED. I concur that it is not a good practice and is legitimately warnable. Be happy. I also even apologize for that dig. Obviously, you do not need to be told to look up definitions of words known to any literate sixth grader, and you have every right to be peeved. Just, please recognize that a warning would have been the way to go not a block, a highly expanded block, then a blaning of userpages. Not to mention allegations of No-Good_faith, Disruptiveness, none of which helps things. And do you really think the original article was such a dog that it was better to leave a completely erroneous report up without correction??Geofferybard (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The New York Court of Appeals on Thursday rendered a decision which will effect copyright litigation regarding the world wide web in the Second Federal Circuit. In Penguin Group vs American Buddha the court was asked to decide whether the case should be heard in New York, where Penguin is located, or in Arizona, where American Buddha has web servers located. The court found in favor of the Manhattan-based plaintiff, [which means that a greater burden of time and expense will fall upon companies who are accused of copyright violation. -probably too POV or OR for Wikinews? OTOH obvious enough to include? .-Bard]

The complainant, Penguin, is a major New York publishing house which alleges violation of its copyrights to "Oil!" and "It Can't Happen Here" , both by Sinclair Lewis; "The Golden Ass" by Apuleius, and "On the Nature and the Universe" by Lucretius. American Buddha purports to be a non-profit "online library" with servers in Oregon and Arizona. According to an earlier lower court's order, it operates to "encourage and facilitate the downloading ofunauthorized copies of plaintiff’s copyrighted works by the general public". That court had dismissed the case on the basis that a New York court did not have jurisdiction over onlline activities in other states, a finding which was overuled by today's order.

In the age of the ubiquitous, I-Pad, judges have been confronting with a rapidly expanding caseload of internet piracy cases. [Another item of basically the report knows thiws is the case and it is somewhat obvious. Is that OK or does it violate Wkinews OR/POV policies? Please advise.-Bard] It is widely recognized that 'the digital environment poses a unique threat to the rights of copyright owners' and that 'digital technology enables pirates to reproduce and distribute perfect copies of works - at virtually no cost at all to the pirate,"wrote Judge Victoria Graffeo in an opinion which is legally binding in all states of the Second Federal Circuit. which includes Connecticut and Vermont as well as New York. "The injury in this case", the court held, "is more difficult to identify and quantify because the alleged infringement involves the Internet, which by its nature is intangible and ubiquitous." Prior to today;s ruling, it was, as far as the Second Circuit was concerned, only possible to bring a lawsuit in the state where the injury, in this case copyright violation, actually occurred. That state of affairs muddled pursuit of internet pirates and was ended by today's decision.

I note you have not responded to my initial post-mortem of your first attempt at an article.

I am concerned that Wikinewsies are being disingenuously drawn into a "Wikipedia might-is-right" dispute. They should, I believe, desist in commenting on absolutely any aspects of your strident, uninformed, and weaselly, attempts to apply what you think is Wikipedia policy here. Wikinews is not Wikipedia.

You were blocked. Get over it. Leave policy well alone, for a long time. And, beat your sword into a ploughshare. Ignore the comments you have provoked through your attitude problem, or...

This should be considered a final block warning. You are wasting the time of all the experienced contributors who may be able to help you fit it. Desist, or you will be subject to an extended block with no talk page access.

You lost the moral high ground a long time ago, don't shell it with mustard gas. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Brian I don't know anything about a "wikipedia might is right dispute" nor can I fathom that you consider me not-responding. I regret that my good faith attempts to provide constructive feedback on the whole warnings-block policies and procedures is being percieved as "disruptive" and compared to "mustard gas". I don't know that I should try to "respond" to your remarks but if you provide the link I will follow it and respond. You have the right to ignore my suggested modifications of policy but I would appreciate if you let me know if you just want to drop New York Court of Appeals Issues Decision on WWW copyright law or to proceed. Geofferybard (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Drop it. You're not in Kansas, or on Wikipedia, anymore. Take a long, hard look at how you helped turn this into a spectacular drama. And, delete the below section; it's as unseemly as picking a scab in your left nostril. Per my advice to admins on WN:AAA, you're the newbie.

If you don't think this comment is inappropriate, take a long-hard look at the percentage of edits over the past 48 hours devoted to something you provoked. You did not react to failed reviews in anything resembling an appropriate manner nor, it would seem, read any content-related policies; just the ones to wikilawyer with.

Fin. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Brian you are a persistent and talented editor I think it would be a privilege to work with you. I really did pop off some sharp remarks that would have been better left unsaid. But the 2nd CIrcuit is influential, are you sure you want to drop that story? It could influence all US courts esp since NYC is where most of our publishers are. Geofferybard (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Post-mortemPlease note, I am carrying this out via use of a very small, touchscreen 3G device; it will progress slowly.

[I certainly do appreciate that you took the time to do this. -GB]

Initial submission

Here is the initially submitted-for-review version of this article.

It has far less faults than many later revisions.

[Hmmm. Thought some of the revisions were improvements, some based upon feedback. For instance, choice of title, suggested by BloodRed.]

Those I note are as follows: Title: Upstyle. Lacks some context that would be appropriate. [Agreed.]

Otherwise fairly nice wordplay. [ OK I take that as a concrete signal of good faith. Duly noted- GB.]

Double-dated. That looks downright bizarre. [Well, I think that is obviously a typo'. I recall correcting that one myself, without prompting, so it wouldn't be right to hold that one against me. "Bizarre" is a bit strong for a typo, although granted they can be taken that way if one does not process them as typos. But we do news, not tabloid news-of-the-wierd so our readers would probably filter a typo without imposing a surreal gestalt onto it. At least, one would hope.Incidentally, I can't resist pointing out that I admire the BBC as opposed to, say, Fox, and my earlier remarks on the British-American tension in en.Wikiwhatever are regretted, withdrawn and apologized for. GB]]

No idea why anyone thinks that would be "ready for publication". [I just noticed this was the very first version or a very early version of only 108 (how ironic) but very rapidly I had corrected many glitches including that one as I recall, myself, unprompted. So it is not quite correct or fair to characterize this as supposed to be ready for pub, in fact at that point I don't know that I even knew to put a Breaking Review template on. In actuality it was work in progress In-Use and being corrected. I recall thinking full well that the initialisation or rather the acronym was temporary to be replaced as soon as I could verify the correct name of the Nippon Self Defense Forces.Still, a valid point on your part, but not pertinent to whatever it was that I did view as ready to publish, which that 108 words was not. -GB] SDF? Who they? A quality news article introduces readers to acronyms that are not instantly recognisable and reinforced by context (Eg, EU); convention would be "Voluntary Milking System (VMS)", only including the parenthised acronym where it needs reuse later in the article. Absolutely no Wikilinks; I am most surprised someone asserting long-experience with any project would omit such.

[Oh. I think I have a pretty good defense on this point, and it may be of interest to you. Some projects don't like Wikilinks, eg., Wikibooks. And ,font color=green>I thought perhaps you prefered to maintain Wikinews as a freestanding entity. For instance, if people translate the news story they would not want links to en.WP nor are they useful for hard copy print outs. I have no qualms with taking direction on this it is a matter of local wiki policy.-GB,] Categories; per above. 5W+H. Per almost every journalistic MoS on the planet, the lede should answer as many of these as possible. In more old-fashioned print journalism the convention is to write this such that your sub-editor could, if faced with space constraints, just use that to partially inform readers. Only two paragraphs; our style guide mandates a minimum of three. [I long ago developed a habit of including tiered subheadlines such as one sees in the New York Times. Those usually laid the foundation of 5W-H and perhaps I developed a style reliant on that device which encouraged the most minimal attention to 5W-H, particularly in a story like this which was surrounded by a thicket of similar stories. It was, as one editor commented, an "update". Updates by nature require less comprehensive foundation. But, not to excuse the ommission you are correct that the write up needed 5W-H and I was aware of it and perhaps a bit too arrogant to want to spend time spelling out what I may have regarded as Fukushima disaster for Dummies when I could be sinking my teeth into the "meat" of the breaking news. Guilty as charged.-GB]

Zero effort to format [newbie figured best left to old hands.-gb]in any way resembling other articles. Problems with sources: Incorrectly formatted, template not completed correctly. Use of a 'live feed' as a source; how can anyone verify what you've seen when the article is written after it was broadcast? [Hey now - I corrected that after the first review and supplied a four square replacement. As I stated at the time, the intent was to demonstrate that I had personally monitored the developments in real time. That link should have appeared in the edit summary or talk. Fair is fair now, that ommission had been corrected early on. -GB] The IAEA source is, as others incorrectly stated, actually a legitimate source. There do exist some issues citing such, say, going straight to the horse's mouth, but,... That, largely, covers the initial submission. I think it's fair[ well yes fair as far as it goes it is fair if you take my points that this was the bare scratch first pass and I was indeed online actively updating and growing the article. -GB]; I don't think we can expect a new contributor to know about

Some information contained in this article was obtained from television, radio, or live webcast sources. Reporter's notes and the broadcast source details are available at the collaboration page.

, but I will reiterate two points where I feel things were bound to go downhill from here and any (as-yet unexamined) review of this. The other issue is, it's taken me 45+ minutes to type up this critique from written notes; reviewers won't, largely, take that time; nor will those submitting articles be patient enough (especially in cases such as this).[i really appreciate this tutorial believe me it establishes good faith and inspires me to go along with things here and give it a chance to work out. -gb]

The contributing author made an appeal to an irrelevant authority. [which was whom?-GB][maybe one of the three was not a good one but it did contain the info 'secondarily',,,,thought being it could be dleeted...] There is a widespread misconception that blogging=journalism, [whoa...easy does it...that is not my issue, I never took bloggers for journalists ipso facto did not take blogging for "=" anything...this phenomenon of which you speak affects kids, perhaps...like the presumptions about WP=WN, not my issue, please don't grind this axe on my watch and I will reciprocally beat the swords into plowshares...believe me I am not enamored of bloggers-I provided two solid links to NISA and IAEA which some thought too "primary" but which i now understand you defendedGB]

and another that length a Wikipedia account has been held entitles a user to instantly be 100% trusted on a sister project. Wikinews, by its very nature, cannot accept that. End of Part 1. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:Geofferybard/IAEA_Puts_Cold_Water_on_Reactor_Hopes"

back at it 8:00 AM PST