User talk:Me Da Wikipedian

Category:Abandoned, to be deleted 6 days ago

Why are these needed? Oldest abandoned stories are listed at bottom of the list of 'Disputed' in Newsroom. (I am going slowly because I am following up with the authors individually this time.) Gryllida (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Same reason that the 1 and 2 days are needed...for when an admin comes by to delete them...@Gryllida Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. How is this useful to me? It'd be more productive to visit a sorted list by date of addition. There is DPL extension here, it provides this information. Here are articles added to category:Abandoned, sorted by date of addition:

• 26 September 2024: Ford Motor Company announces plans to repurpose Chennai plant in Tamil, southern India for global exports
• 26 September 2024: Poland declares state of disaster due to severe floods
• 26 September 2024: 2024 Hyundai Alcazar Facelift All Variants Explained
• 26 September 2024: New Maruti Suzuki S-CNG Launched!
• 26 September 2024: Global Witness reports almost 200 environmental activist killings in 2023
• 29 September 2024: 33,000 Boeing machinists go on strike
• 29 September 2024: New Hyundai Alcazar Launched at Rs. 14.99 Lakh
• 1 October 2024: Ovais Singstar's "Satranga" Revisited: A Fresh Take on a Timeless Classic

Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Related: a question at MediaWiki (yet to be answered, as of now). Gryllida (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

{{Date}}

I don't know what you've been doing to the {{date}} template on your articles recently, perhaps subst'ing it, but it's turning it into a parser function, which screws up the article by continually updating the byline date on it (so if an article was published today, on September 10, tomorrow it'd have a byline date of September 11 — it shouldn't). Heavy Water (talk) 03:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have been substing, i've done that the whole time, never knew that was a problem...@Heavy Water Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Examples

You asked for examples of the kinds of problematic reviews that inspired my A/B category proposal. It was a long time ago, would require digging through some very very unpleasant memories, and involves 1) at least one person who still participates here on Wikinews (and might have improved considerably in the time that has elapsed since) and 2) another person who does not still participate on Wikinews because he is deceased. As in dead. As in he can't give his side of the story any more. I don't want to badmouth either of these people unless you are sure it will help your Wikinews process. Not if you're just curious.

Another problem is that a lot of those drafts didn't get published, specifically because there was a problematic review. I can't link you to a talk page that isn't there. I either took one look at the review and quietly abandoned the article OR I tried to explain and there was a huge fight. For example, the article on which I got the "say what kind of black they are" review did not get published: "US: Missouri police announce they are investigating Danye Jones's death as suicide," 2018. The reviewer was not from the United States, spoke English as a subsequent language, and did not at that time understand what "Black" means in English. (Since the 2020 Floyd Riots have happened since then, that person may well understand now.)

A lot of my experience on Wikinews has involved other people doing things without knowing why they're doing it. I don't mean anyone would consciously think "I'm angry at the SARS-COV-2 virus, so I'll be mean to another Wikinewsie, mya ha ha!" I mean that if someone has just spent six months working from a home office that they hate, watching their children fall behind in remote learning, is way behind on their bills and worried about eviction, just found out that their uncle died, and is surrounded by neighbors who think the virus isn't real and walk around breathing on everything, yes, they might take their anger out on another person without realizing that that's what they're doing.

So before I put myself through all that, I want you to think: Where are you on the dimmer switch of need-to-know vs just-curious? And which kinds of information do you need? What would you do if you saw the name of someone you know and respect, insisting something contrary to evidence? Would it help anything to find out they used to do that?

Think hard. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 I am pretty sure who the second user in question is and I think that part is less important. But what you are describing, pertaining to the other reviewer, what you are describing are very serious accusations that, unless said behaviour has changed, would probably warrant the removal of the reviewer permission.

So, I have a queston for you. Do you believe that behaviour has been resolved or that it still exists? Because if its the second I would think that it is in an issue that needs to be resolved and at a minimum needs to be known to the community at large. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't checked up on this person and don't plan to. And I wouldn't call it "behavior." That's a word that teachers use on little kids, and we're all adults here.

EDIT: Let me put it this way. If this person doesn't give impossible reviews and/or doesn't react negatively to proof that they're wrong any more, then they deserve a corresponding good reputation and it would be wrong of me to undermine it. If they do still do those things, then you'll see it for yourself. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

w:Human behavior tells me that volunteering is a behavior. Gryllida (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

In this case I am using "behaviour" to mean "action". Many of our current reviewers will disappear for years on end, including one who hasn't reviewed an article since January 2012. @Darkfrog24 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 Admittedly much of the relevant information is lost, but from what I can dig up you seem to have been clearly wrong. I generally agree with 2 users in question. The only person there demanding changes that don't have consensus is you.

Please don't reply with rehashing the same lengthy and unproductive debates. I will just ignore it. You will clearly not be convinced and I find the 2 users in question's arguement to be much more valid.

You clearly feel that you are correct. But the "many" do not. And consensus is how this site's policy works. I notice you have also been blocked many many many times for not following arbitration decisions and edit warring. I think this issue is also related.

In addition, I most definetly oppose reforming the review process because of this 1 dispute. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Good luck, Me Da. I invite you to use my experience here on Wikinews as an information resource to improve the site. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 this account is now blocked. More info down here. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 15:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I saw that after my first response this morning. I don't quite know what to make of it yet, but it seems I'm not alone in that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Blocked

User blocked for impersonating and attempting RfP of another user (will add details after the block).
•–• 03:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, given what happened today with Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Removal/Bddpaux which was an attempt to impersonate Bddpaux, a CU action was warranted. Through which, it was discovered that it was the same IP+UA (user agent) as Me Da Wikipedian from earlier this month. To summarise the actions of the impersonating account:

1. Created an account closely matching an admin+reviewer's username.
2. Misled others by redirecting their own user+talk to that other user's user+talk page.
3. Create an RfP on their behalf, trying to remove their privs.
4. Weirdly, they added this comment.

Given the nature of this offense/crime/action -- this account has been perma banned on this site.
•–• 03:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Socking

I'm disappointed in you. You ingratiated yourself into the en.wn community by doing good content work and learning fast. You seemed to be headed on the gradual path towards reviewership, towards contributing a lot to the project. Only to throw it all away by doing this. It's highly unlikely you'll make a response (well, an honest response), I'm just wondering why you did this, especially when there was no reason (from what I know) for you to have a grudge against Paul. Heavy Water (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This is simply bizarre - I cannot understand any reason for this behaviour, especially from someone who had really started to settle in here, from someone who had started to gain my respect. What was the plan? Stir up discourse? Just doing it for the laughs? It's laughable. This was never going to end in Paul having his permissions removed, so I just cannot see why you'd do this. A.S. Thawley (talk) (calendar) 15:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I observe that the impostor calls Wikinews a failure while posing as Bddpaux. So what we think happened is either that Me Da was a sincere Wikinewsie who suddenly flipped and performed an act of unambiguous and profound misconduct while making no obvious effort not to get caught or Me Da spent four months building a false persona here on Wikinews for the purpose of destabilizing it like a sleeper agent? The first would mean that the impostor is sophisticated enough to clean up the signature and redirect all the user and talk page links but somehow not sophisticated enough to know that checkuser is a thing. The second would require a level of patience that we don't usually see in people who make drama for kicks. Bizarre is the word. Is there some way to pass this further up the chain, check for cross-wiki multiple accounts? Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 I did know that CU was a thing. As Acagastya said, I had used the IP only earlier in the month with this account, and forgot about it...good thing I did. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 Acagastya kind of did this already with the initial CU check, and as far as I'm aware, he did check with the stewards about this case before indefinitely blocking this user. It is possible to go further if needed, but I don't see the need at this time. Leaderboard (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to share my observation that those two are not the only possibilities, there can any other reason to. And it is understandable that this would infuriate the community; however, this does not undo the lack of honesty and integrity that is needed in this community.
•–• 10:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Asheiou @Darkfrog24 @Heavy Water @Acagastya @Bddpaux (tell me if I missed anyone)

I would like to apologize for what I did, which was, needless to say, very wrong, especially to Bddpaux, who in no possible way deserved this. I would like to thank Heavy Water for catching this.

I never really had a plan and frankly I chose the user at random. I certainly wasn't planning this for 4 months. I honestly don't remember what I was thinking at the time, but I do remember immediatly regretting it. I was in the middle of writing a message stating that this was an imposter account and to ignore the request when I saw Heavy Water's comment (at which point I was no longer worried that an admin would action the request). (other note, the reason I couldn't retract the request is because I forgot what password I made for the sock account).

I'm honestly not totally certain why I did this, but I think that Darkfrog24 got it more or less right ("a sincere Wikinewsie who suddenly flipped and performed an act of unambiguous and profound misconduct").

Although it probably doesn't seem that way, I do sincerely care about Wikinews and always have. This wasn't a ruse and I hope you all can at least see that, I made a mistake but I do care about this site, still do, and still want to help fix it. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

That quote is rather poor (mildly speaking; there could be stronger words said about it) at explaining the underlying cause. Gryllida (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gryllida I agree, I don't exactly have a great idea of why I did it either... Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)