text:
First international flight lands at Delhi airport's new Terminal 3

July 16, 2010

An Boeing 777 from New York's  was the first international flight to land at Delhi's new Terminal 3 at.

However, this was only one of nine "terminal process proving flights" that landed or departed from the brand-new steel and glass T3 on either Wednesday or Thursday. Seven of the proving flights departed or arrived on Wednesday and two on Thursday. The new terminal was inaugurated by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 3. Terminal 3 is designed to handle large international aircraft like the, which landed as one of the terminal process proving flights on Thursday.

Though Delhi International Airport Limited (DIAL), which operates the airport, had planned earlier to commission the new terminal for international operations on Wednesday, the commissioning was pushed to July 28 due to unfinished construction.

However, the proving flights proceeded as planned, and DIAL, with 450 employees from 13 airlines, conducted a full trial of all operations on Tuesday.

In addition to the Air India arrival from New York, United States, the first departure in the new Terminal was a  international flight to, Nepal. The first domestic flight that departed from T3 was an Air India flight from,.

On Tuesday, before the Air India 777 was slated to arrive, an official from that airline said that “All the 220 passengers and 18 crew members of the New York flight (AI-102) would clear their immigrations at the new terminal. It is going to be a real test for all the agencies at T3." DIAL also stated that "passengers traveling by these nine flights (July 14 and July 15) are being informed individually by their respective airlines. Flight information is also being displayed on standees at terminal 2. The information about flights arriving and departing from Terminal 3 will also be displayed prominently at various points on the eight lane road from Hotel Radisson to Terminal 3."

The terminal process proving flights aimed to make sure that everything, including airlines, air traffic control, ground handling agencies, duty free shops, flight caterers, aviation oil companies, customs, and immigration, are all in working order.


text: User talk:Drokorn1985

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Drokorn1985


text: Comments:Switzerland sets Polish film director Roman Polanski free


text: User talk:Juliorodriguez1988

title: User talk:Juliorodriguez1988


text: User talk:PerriAlexis

title: User talk:PerriAlexis


text:
Talk:ARM: 2010 worst year for Afghanistan since US invasion

Right of response?
Does this article deserve either right of response or corroboration?

Response (or lack of) from the Taliban/IFOR/Afghan government should be noted, in my opinion.

Corroboration of the claims could be sought from other human rights organisations such as the UN or ICRC.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


text: Comments:ARM: 2010 worst year for Afghanistan since US invasion


text:
Thread:Comments:UCLA basketball coach John Wooden dies at age 99/Comments from feedback form - "This was a sad moment for ULCA..."

This was a sad moment for ULCA and their fans.


text:
User talk:Nelson23~enwikinews

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Nelson23. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Nelson23~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nelson23~enwikinews


text: User talk:OP13

title: User talk:OP13


text:
Thread:Comments:Switzerland sets Polish film director Roman Polanski free/Comments from feedback form - "There is some confusion in the..."

There is some confusion in the first paragraph compared to the headline.


text:
Thread:Comments:Australia's Governor-General cuts trip short over looming election/Comments from feedback form - "Election? And then...? No in..."

Election? And then...? No info on the election, what type of election, opponents, or any reason whatsoever this should be in the headlines. Who cares if she cuts her trip short? One person only. Hello. Give reasons why this is important, to more than just her. I'm not saying that she's not worth anything or that she doesn't matter, but I am saying that Wikispaces should prioritize a little better. Of course, that goes to ever news network of any kind. Live Long and Prosper


text:
Thread:Comments:ARM: 2010 worst year for Afghanistan since US invasion/Comments from feedback form - "The only thing that needs impr..."

The only thing that needs improvement here is a brief outline of how long the hostilities are expected to continue at these high rates, and a little information on the Taliban's side. Otherwise it isn't neutral. Although we might not agree with their side of the story, or easily be able to get it, understanding their position a little better, would be beneficial. Live Long and Prosper


text: User talk:Absolutejoker

title: User talk:Absolutejoker


text:
User talk:63.68.150.2

Hello, !

This is Wikinews, a free news source. Wikinews is an experiment in citizen journalism, not an encyclopedia. You may be confusing us with our sister project Wikipedia. Your encyclopedic addition to Wikinews was deleted. Please add it to Wikipedia if it is relevant there. We would be happy to welcome you as a contributor to Wikinews! Bawolff ☺☻ 23:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:63.68.150.2


text: User talk:Treviorum

title: User talk:Treviorum


text: User talk:Teddy-Bear-USA

title: User talk:Teddy-Bear-USA


text:
Intel posts best ever quarterly results

July 14, 2010

Technology giant Intel released its second quarter results Tuesday, which were the best in the 42 years of the company's existence. The stronger than anticipated results boosted the company's share price, along with those of other technology firms.

Intel's revenues over the quarter up to 26 June were $10.8 billion, with net profit at $2.9 billion. In the same quarter last year, the company made a loss of 398 million. Its gross margin rose to 67%, higher than the forecast of 64.1%. The results were better than forecast by either Intel or outside analysts.

The company, which makes processors for around 80 percent of the world's personal computers, is thought to have benefited from an increase in demand for electronics as the world economy moves out of recession.

“Strong demand from corporate customers for our most advanced microprocessors helped Intel to achieve the best quarter in the company’s 42-year history”, said chief executive Paul Otellini.

Intel shares rose by 8% following the results. Shares in rival processor manufacturer also rose by 5.5%, with other technology firms seeing similar rises. The closed at 10,363.02 points, an increase of 146.75.

title: Intel posts best ever quarterly results


text: User talk:Alvincura

title: User talk:Alvincura


text: User talk:Jahangir23

title: User talk:Jahangir23


text:
User talk:77.99.47.42

Hi, please note that we are Wikinews, and do not accept biographies or other encyclopedic content - that is outside our scope. Your recent contributions have been deleted. We only accept articles on recent news events. Please see the introduction to learn how to contribute constructively to this project. Thanks for your understanding. Tempodivalse [talk]  23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:77.99.47.42


text:
Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2010 election/Questions

 * Instead of posing the same question multiple times on the Nominations page, please place any questions for all ArbCom candidates in a section below.

 * Candidates should, in subsections titled by the candidate's name, insert their responses to questions submitted by members of the community in good standing.

General, opening, question
In the past it has been suggested that ArbCom be abolished. Have you familiarised yourself with the dispute(s) leading to its formation, and previously heard cases? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Tempodivalse

 * I don't know all the details, not having been on Wikinews back then, but am generally familiar with the Neutralizer/MrM/other stuff that led up to its conception, and have read through both of ArbCom's previously accepted cases. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Brian
I was around when that happened, and I recall the reasons for setting up our arbcom. I am also familiar with past cases - I was involved in one of them after-all. I do not support the abolishing proposal, however, I would like arbcom to stay like it is, dormant. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

gopher
I've looked through two arbcom cases. I wasn't around for the Neutralizer issue, but I've read enough in the past to know the general gist of the issue. Although ArbCom hasn't been used extensively, I support its continued existence on the basis that it is easier to keep the committee on standby and not need it than it is to need the committee and not have it around. Gopher65talk 02:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

bawolff
I am familiar with the disputes leading up to the creation of the arbcom, as well as its previous cases, as I was an active member of the community at that time. I was also an arbitrator during its original cases. I understand where the people who want to abolish it are coming from, however i don't think the committee's presence hurts anything, and it may well be useful in the future. Bawolff ☺☻

Pi zero
Although I'd skimmed the two cases before, today I started by skimming (lightly) the first nine policy water cooler archives, after which the two cases are a lot more meaningful. It seems likely that, once the ArbCom was established as a real entity by those cases, its continued existence has helped to greatly reduce how often arbitration becomes necessary — which is in itself well worth the trouble of maintaining an ArbCom. --Pi zero (talk) 06:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tris
Over the past year I have come across the previous two cases whilst browsing and so have a decent understanding of them. I'm familiar with why ArbCom was originally formed and would strongly argue against it being abolished, much preferring it sits year after year, not doing anything, but available if needed.   Tris   14:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Skenmy
I have read and familiarised myself with the previous cases back in my previous term as an arbitrator. I can appreciate the position of those wishing to abolish the committee, however I feel as if it is a "necessary evil" on our project. In the event it is needed, it is there - but for the most time it remains dormant. This can only be a good thing. -- Sken   my talk 06:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

C628
I have read some, but not all, the material surrounding the beginning of Arbcom, and have read both prior cases, as well as the current one. I don't think it should be abolished; I feel that it should serve as a last resort, and I think there needs to be such a body able to place a binding resolution on an inflammatory situation. C628 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt
I have read through past case history, and do not think ArbCom should be abolished. I would prefer it to be relatively inactive due to low demand (ideally). :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cspurrier
I was an active participant in the creation of arbcom and the past cases, so I am very familiar with them. As I said in my statement, I hope the arbcom remains a little used feature, but we should have it when we need it. --Cspurrier (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

From BNZ to everyone

 * What is the meaning of life?
 * How familiar are you with the history of Wikinews? Furthermore, in which direction do you see the future of Wikinews heading? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally, how important is the dispute resolution process to Wikinews? Do you feel that it is important the community tries to resolve issues before arbcom step in? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Tempodivalse

 * Writing articles for Wikinews? (Sorry, my sense of humour isn't that witty.) Smile.png
 * I'm fairly familiar with how Wikinews was started and how it got "off the ground" - I've looked through some discussion archives from Wikinews' earliest days and at the project proposal on Meta. I see the future of Wikinews as being where we have hundreds of editors from across the globe contributing both synthesis reports and OR, so we become a free-use, neutral alternative to the deteriorating-quality mainstream media.
 * I think it's important for the community to have a say in dispute resolution, it actually should be one of the first steps. As I've seen, a lot of times small arguments can be resolved this way without too much fuss. ArbCom only should come in when "all else fails" - for instance, there is a long-standing dispute between two/three users that the community can't smooth out by itself. Then someone needs to have the "final say" and put an end to things so that community health doesn't suffer. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Brian

 * 1) Well the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything is 42 if that counts ;)
 * 2) I have been around since 2005, I have thus lived through most of wikinews history. Much like those who lived through (and were old enough to remember the end of the cold war...). I see wikinews, finally becoming the project that we all imparted out on 5 years ago. We have something mainstream media cannot have. That’s what we need to ensure we use to our advantage
 * 3) Of course the community needs to resolve disputes. However, sometimes I think arbcom just needs to be called in. I feel that the infighting we have experienced over the last couple of months could have been handled better. No need for the community to rip its guts out. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

gopher

 * 1) The Meaning of Life was a 1983 movie starring the cast of the Flying Circus. Personally I liked both The Life of Brian and Monty Python and the Holy Grail more. But it did have that great "powers of ten" based song by Eric Idle:).
 * 2) I've looked through old discussions about the path that wikinews ended up taking (the Great Licencing Debate of Aught5), and I was around for a few of the newer ones (ie, Flagged Revs). Wikinews is still young, so frankly there isn't much history to be familiar with;). I'd like Wikinews to achieve 3 general (and fairly obvious) goals: 1) continue to improve the quality of content in any way we can, 2) grow the number of contributors that we have at any one time, so that even with attrition (due to burnout) we still slowly gain users, and finally, 3) differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia News by doing the one thing that they cannot: lots and lots of OR.
 * 3) A wiki is by its very nature built upon consensus between people that might have very different opinions. We don't all have to like each other, we don't all have to even agree with each other, but we do have to work toward a common goal. The way to do that is to hash out our differences to our mutual satisfaction. Sometimes this can be achieved by simply laying out the facts and explaining your position, but sometimes the available facts allow more than one valid conclusion. People will then draw their conclusion based on their internal bias and their past experience. In that (rare) circumstance where a presentation of the facts isn't enough, a compromise solution should be attempted by *both* parties involved. Only when one or both sides have clearly shown that they are too immature to reach a solution on their own should they submit their case to ArbCom. In that case ArbCom will *impose* a nasty, nasty compromise that neither side is happy with. That's the nature of compromise. Gopher65talk 02:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

bawolff
Bawolff ☺☻ 06:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 54. Since: $$ 6_{13} \times 9_{13} = 42_{13} = 54_{10}$$
 * I've been here for a while, and definitely absorbed much of the history. I see Wikinews slowly growing better and better like its always done. Well I don't think we will experience exponential growth like 'pedia did, we nonetheless will continue to grow, and thats all that matters.
 * Wikinews, like any community full of people with diverse interests, has always had periods where contributors fight. Usually such issues eventually sort themselves out, but perhaps more formal dispute resolution could play a role. We don't know until we try.

Tris

 * If I knew that, I doubt I'd be hanging around Wikinews all day...unless....
 * I haven't been here as long as some of the old codgers, but am pretty familiar with its history. I can actually see Wikinews growing hugely, but it will take time.  There will be a tipping point, when we have got the processes relatively accessible and easy and a decent number of contributors, coupled with the expansion of mobile internet and citizens able to report on news from the scene, when Wikinews could be one of the main news sources out there.  That's what I'm aiming for; hopefully we can make it happen.     Tris   14:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The dispute resolution process is of course, very important, because naturally humans fight. However, I strongly believe that most issues can be sorted by the community as a whole and when they are, it is much more beneficial to the project having issues sorted out with everyone involved than decisions handed down.  Unfortunately, sometimes these decisions are necessary and this is where ArbCom can play a role.     Tris   14:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi zero

 * The pinnacle of intellectual achievement is to tackle a question previously perceived as intractable, and provide an answer that, once pointed out, seems obvious. By that measure, Douglas Adams was one of the greatest intellects of modern times.  42.
 * In two years here, I couldn't help picking up some of the general outlines of the history. Since this nomination, though, I'm devoting some of my copious free time each day to background study, which so far has been skimming discussion archives from the early history (and there's plenty more to skim, both here and on Meta).  As to where we're going, I like Tempo's description: "hundreds of editors from across the globe contributing both synthesis reports and OR, so we become a free-use, neutral alternative to the deteriorating-quality mainstream media."  We don't know, in detail, how we will get from here to there.  We're making it up as we go along (how could it be otherwise?), and each step into the unknown brings new challenges; stressful growth makes for heated debates, and that's where the ArbCom helps to keep things sane.
 * I'm impressed by the collection of answers others have given to this. (Note that we aren't choosing an Arbiter, we're choosing a set of them to exercise collective wisdom.)  I'll expand somewhat on my earlier remarks to Brian McNeil's general opening question:  The object is always to resolve things at the earliest possible step of the dispute resolution process.  The ArbCom provides a terminus for disputes that would otherwise fall off the end of the process; but also, by assuring people of such a terminus, it eases the earlier steps, allowing them to be approached in a safer atmosphere, so making them more effective and reducing the frequency with which disputes reach the terminus.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Skenmy

 * Meaning of life
 * 1) I have been here at Wikinews for over 4 years and am the founder of the Peer Review policy. I have seen Wikinews through good and bad - and I am immensely proud of the work the community puts in on a daily basis. I see Wikinews moving onwards and branching out in different ways - both technically and as a community, through such initiatives as Radio, TV, Accredited Reporting, and other ideas.
 * 2) It is immensely important that people first go through community resolution processes before submitting themselves to ArbCom. 99.9% of the time the community can come to an acceptable resolution. I myself have been guilty of "jumping the gun" a couple of times, and now, looking back, I can see where a community resolution would have been more suitable. -- Sken   my talk 13:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

C628

 * 42(?)
 * I'm familiarish with how Wikinews got started--looked through some of the early discussions, stuff on Meta, etc, but I don't the exact events of the early days. I see the future as being a mix of both synthesis and OR, with a much greater proportion of OR compared to currently, as well as many more contributors, although it'll take quite a while, and I'll probably be gone by the time it comes to pass.
 * Dispute resolution by the community should be the norm. Arbom should be the last resort, to be used only when the community has tried and failed to solve the problem by itself. C628 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt

 * Not sure, but hopefully this will be made clearer in the future, through the efforts to ease access and spread of information. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a bit familiar with the history of Wikinews, and have read some of its development at Meta and as discussed in secondary sources. In the future, I would like to see growth in contributors, in quality of articles generated, and in review. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolution as a process is important, but in answer to the second part, hopefully prior steps including community discussion can help to resolve issues before they get that far along. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cspurrier

 * 42, of course.
 * I have been on Wikinews since March 15 2005, just a few months after Wikinews started. The few months of history I was not here for I read soon after I joined (it was easy back then :) ). I hope that our future is one in which our contributor base and article count grow significantly, particularly our coverage of under-reported on areas. It is going to be a lot of hard work, but I think we can do it.
 * Dispute resolution is very important if only because arbcom cases consume huge amounts of our contributor's valuable time, any method that consumes less time and resolves the problem is desirable and should be used before arbcom.--Cspurrier (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Question from Tempo

 * How often do you check into Wikinews (or visit our IRC channel)? Do you keep abreast of what's going on at the wiki even if you don't always edit? Tempodivalse [talk]  01:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

gopher
I check Wikinews on a daily basis, and I try to be in IRC as much as is reasonably possible. I normally see myself in more of a supporting janitorial roll than as a frontline journalist, but I like to remain abreast of the latest events, both onwiki and in the news. Gopher65talk 02:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Brian
I check wikinews most days, at least 4 times a week. Also follow the mailing lists and of course read wikinews articles via rss Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

bawolff
Way way too much. I'm usually on irc all weekdays, and sometimes weekends (I even have a small shell script to add wikinews to my /etc/hosts for times when I'm getting too distracted). Bawolff ☺☻ 06:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tris
I would say I check into Wikinews once a day minimum, visiting the irc channel less because I often can't access it. If I'm not editing for whatever reason, then visiting every day means I'm almost always up to date with exactly what's going on and who has said what. When things get interesting or I'm editing, it would be a hell of a lot more than once a day!   Tris   14:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Skenmy
I check Wikinews every day, read up on AAA and other pages marked for my attention - such as RfP, RfCU, etc - and I am active in the IRC channel most days. -- Sken   my talk 13:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

C628
I check Wikinews generally several times a day, less during the school year, but still try to at least once a day. IRC is somewhat less, but consistently at least once every couple of days, more in the summer when I have time. C628 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi zero
I check Wikinews at least once a day, usually more. I try to be aware of what's going on on-wiki, but in the interests of sanity, time, and usefulness of my participation, I try to maintain a fairly high threshold for getting involved in things. Exceptional situations have sometimes lead to periods of more intense involvement. --Pi zero (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt

 * I check into Wikinews usually at least once per day. I try to keep abreast of issues, look over ongoing discussions of note. Available by email through emailthisuser, a bit more frequently than that. -- Cirt (talk) 02:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cspurrier
I usually check Wikinews multiple times a day (my browser history says I loaded RC 15 times today) and even at my busiest last year I still managed to check Wikinews daily. Most of the time though I only have a few minutes to read and thus the editing has to wait until I have more time. --Cspurrier (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Question from Tempo Nr. 2

 * How much do you think an arb has to be "involved" in a given issue in order to recuse himself from it? If you're the subject of a case, then that's pretty obvious, but what if, for instance, you had just commented a few times on an issue? Is that enough to make you feel obligated to not participate? Tempodivalse [talk]  03:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

bawolff
Generally if both parties feel that I am ok, then I won't recurse. If one of the parties feel that i should, i probably would recurse. I generally do not feel that a couple minor comments is sufficient, however every case is different, and it depends on the situation. It is also important to note that in a small community like ours, it would be rare for an issue of arbcom magnitude not to be noticed by everyone in the community prior to the case. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tris
I would prefer that arbs are as uninvolved as possible, which is something I try to do anyway, unless something needs to be said. Large disputes will inevitably involve most people and so I wouldn't force an arb to not take part just because they had made a comment. On the whole though, the less involved the better and that would be something I would expect all arbs to ensure happened.   Tris   14:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tempodivalse
(I've already addressed this more or less in my own question section above, but may as well comment here as well for clarity.) I don't feel an arb should recuse just for providing an opinion or chiming in on an issue. You're almost always going to have opinions on a given topic, there's really no difference in whether you say them out loud or keep them to yourself. Unless you become a direct participant in the dispute by taking an aggressive stance and conflicting with other users, it's usually possible to be objective about it and consider all points of view fairly regardless of your own POV. Wikinews is small and close-knit, and unless you're totally estranged from it, you're going to come into some sort of contact with a high-level dispute sooner or later - which is why I don't feel our recusal expectations should be as stringent as those of, say, Wikipedia. I'd personally only recuse if I could not be certain I'd look at all sides of an argument objectively, or if other arbs thought it would be best for me to do so. Tempodivalse [talk]  18:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

gopher
ArbCom is suppose to be used only when all other dispute resolution options have failed. Part of the dispute resolution process is have other members of the community chime in with suggestions on how to resolve the issue. Given that there are what, 60 of us (tops), that would make it very difficult for an ArbCom member to be completely uninvolved in a dispute. With the exception of cases where an obvious conflict of interest exists, I'd personally recluse myself only if other members of ArbCom felt that I should (a majority wouldn't be necessary, nor would they need to vote. Just ask, and I'd comply.), or if I felt that the nature of the case was such that my personal biases would cloud my judgment. Gopher65talk 00:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Skenmy
Are ArbCom members not part of the community? Do we not encourage community dispute resolution before an ArbCom case? I will not remove myself from a case for providing an opinion - assuming other ArbCom members are happy with me sitting in on a case. -- Sken   my talk 13:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

C628
Given the size of the community, I think it is highly unlikely that there's going to be uninvolved arbitrators, especially if the dispute has gone on long enough to reach Arbcom. Unless I was involved in initiating the dispute, I wouldn't recuse myself unless asked to by another Arbcom member, or any memebr of the community provided they were sufficiently convincing. C628 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi zero
My value to Wikinews is (borrowing some words from gopher, under an earlier question) in a supporting role, rather than frontline journalism. (All things can change, but that's true right now, anyway.) If I curtailed involvement in issues simply because they might later come before ArbCom, that could significantly reduce my net value to the project. So I won't curtail my involvement for that reason.

My best guess is that my involvement in issues won't increase, by much, the likelihood that I'd have to recuse myself. The basic reasons to recuse myself (barring exceptional circumstances) would be that I'm uncomfortable hearing the case, or someone else — or the community at large — would be uncomfortable with my hearing the case. The community, having in this hypothetical situation put me on the ArbCom, would probably not be uncomfortable unless I've been expressing actual bias on the issue. If I have been expressing bias, I might have recused myself even if I'd kept my opinions to myself, because my opinions would make me uncomfortable with my impartiality. --Pi zero (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt
Important and difficult question. I would say this depends on the views of other Arbitrators, if any other single arbitrator voices concern, the user in question should recuse. When in doubt as to questions of impropriety, recusal is the best option. -- Cirt (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cspurrier
Unless our arbcom members are completely inactive, it is highly unlikely that we will ever have a case in which a member is not involved to some degree. If we are to have a functioning arbcom, we need to trust the committee members to use their own judgement in deciding if they need to recuse themselves. Unless the member make an obviously wrong call, I would support their decision either way and I hope the rest of the community would as well.--Cspurrier (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Question from Fetchcomms

 * What does being a member of the ArbCom mean to you? Is it something you would enjoy, or is it a duty? Is it both, or something else?  — fetch · comms  18:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tempodivalse
I regard serving on the ArbCom as being something of a duty, yes, but maybe a bit of a community service too. The way I look at it, you're volunteering to be a part of that fire extinguisher hiding in the corner. You hope never to have to use it, and most of the time you don't, but it's still there. I probably wouldn't classify it as being particularly "enjoyable", especially if a difficult, drama-filled case arises - but maybe it is a bit, in the sense that it's nice to be able to serve the community. Certainly, the ArbCom hat isn't something you should use to consider yourself "above" other users or throw your weight around. Tempodivalse [talk]  18:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Tris
To me, being a member of the ArbCom shouldn't mean anything most of the time. Most disputes should never reach that sort of level. However, a fact of life is that they will occasionally, which is where ArbCom comes in. I wouldn't say it would be something that Arbs should enjoy-the position does not mean you have any extra power, other than at a time when as a committee you are making a decision. Therefore, I guess one could say it was a duty-but that is very different to a chore. It would be something I would be happy to do, not because I enjoy it, but because it would benefit the community as a whole and would hopefully lead to a solution to the problem that presented itself. I hope that makes sense!   Tris   18:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

gopher
ArbCom doesn't mean anything to me, as such. It is neither a duty nor an enjoyable task; ArbCom is simply a dispute resolution process. It is the process that is important, not the individual members; membership does not convey any special rank or privilege. Those of us here are simply offering our services as (hopefully) impartial judges, in preparation for the unlikely and unfortunate event that an unresolvable dispute emerges between two or more members of the community who are in good standing. Gopher65talk 00:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Skenmy
I am always proud to serve a community in any capacity - to me ArbCom feels like being granted a technical flag, i.e. I am being entrusted by a community to serve on the highest authority on the local project. That, to me, is a responsibility, not an right or something to throw weight around. -- Sken   my talk 13:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

C628
Being on Arbcom to me is rather like serving as a sysop/admin or 'crat--it's not a status symbol or anything, but just an additional duty one is entrusted with. It's a duty, certainly, and I wouldn't imagine it being enjoyable, drama never is, and Arbcom is by definition involved with drama. It's, like sysop/admin, just another hat you wear as part of your service to Wikinews, one that only really matters when it's needed, and doesn't matter in the slightest at other times. C628 (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi zero
Most of the time, all it would mean to me would be a continuing low level of background reading. A somewhat tedious chore undertaken for the sake of the project (as preparation for the chance that it might turn into an intense job undertaken for the sake of the project). The comparison with adminship (et al.) makes a good point —it's not a status symbol— but there's also a point at which the comparison breaks down. Part of being granted adminship is that the interface suddenly has a lot more controls to avoid clicking accidentally, that lead to things like blocking users and deleting pages — technically reversible damage, but damage nontheless. Being on ArbCom isn't much like that except within an ArbCom proceeding. Outside of that context, membership in ArbCom only confers power to damage one's own status with the community (potentially resulting either in future recusals or, in extremum, resignation from ArbCom). --Pi zero (talk) 02:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt
Both. Hopefully, it is something that would not have to be utilized all too often. But its existence is an appropriate part of the project. -- Cirt (talk) 02:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions from AlexandrDmitri
--Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What five qualities do you possess which would make you a suitable member of the next Arbitration Committee?
 * What is the single most important contribution you have made to Wikinews over the past year?

gopher

 * 1) I feel that there are only two qualities that matter in an ArbCom member: 1) the ability to take a step back and analysis a problem from an non-personal, impartial perspective, and 2) possession of at least the minimal level intelligence necessary to analysis the problem in question. I think I can be impartial, and I have a minimal level of intelligence.    wait... ... what?
 * 2) It's not possible to unbiasedly judge my own actions. There is an inherent conflict of interest that makes reliable self-judgment impossible. That said... uh... I wrote an article, and I rarely do that. So I suppose that was probably more important than what I normally do. Gopher65talk 02:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt

 * 1) Logical analysis of the issue at hand; put it into perspective and analyze it from viewpoints related to ArbCom, policies, and the community; willingness to recuse; experience with quality writing on controversial topics; help in development of current WN:REVIEW system, experience writing and reviewing articles. -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) 'Dewey Defeats Truman' incident in California State Senate election was a fun contribution and interesting article to work on. -- Cirt (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Question from Benny the mascot
What role do arbitrators have in the community outside of the committee's official business? Would you consider ArbCom members to be de facto "leaders" of our community?

(Tempodivalse already answered this question on his own comments and questions section, so he doesn't have to answer here if he doesn't want to.) Benny the mascot (talk) 14:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

gopher
None. I already touched on this in a previous answer. ArbCom is a dispute resolution mechanism. As long as it is peopled with individuals who are at least vaguely reasonable it doesn't matter who is on the committee. Being on the committee doesn't confer anything other than, "this editor is trusted by the community to be relatively impartial". That's it. Gopher65talk 00:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt
ArbCom should hear cases requested before it, but not weigh in regarding other areas of the project in non-official capacities. In answer to the 2nd part: no. -- Cirt (talk) 02:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Question 2 from Fetchcomms

 * What is your view on Assume good intentions? Does it have a place in ArbCom? Why or why not?  — fetch · comms  18:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi zero
As I see it, AGI is an attempt to craft something that will reduce interpersonal conflict within the project, which makes it a potential ally of the dispute resolution process. In its current form, it's only an essay, so neither failing to apply it nor misapplying could in itself make a case that would come before ArbCom (although consequences of those things might). Should ArbCom itself assume good intentions? I'll put a pin in that and get back to it.

As I understand it —and as I think it should be— AGI is trying to limit itself to interpersonal relations, and is specifically trying to not apply to any decisions about publishing content or about user privileges. That goes to an important point about how AGI should work. The incident that led to AGI's creation was about blocking a user, which is a matter of user privileges and therefore is not subject to AGI. Where AGI comes into the equation, I think, is that —as it appeared to me, on the outside looking in— people's failure to extend AGI to the user was spilling over into the discussion about whether to block. The actual evidence available, which is the appropriate basis for decisions about privileges, did not support the block; the motivation for blocking was (again, as it appeared to me) an assumption of bad intent unsupported by evidence. Hence, AGI should damp out the positive feedback loop that fuels such witch hunts.

It remains to be seen whether we can craft an AGI principle that will do the job we want it to do without causing users to misapply it to things it shouldn't apply to. I have made some contributions to the attempt, including the suggestion that it be called AGI instead of AGF (and I hope to make more... oddly enough, my Wikinews time seems to be occupied with something else, at the moment).

BTW, at the intersection of this question with the earlier one about recusal (which I haven't responded to yet): if after all this I were to end up on ArbCom, and a case about AGI were to come before ArbCom, my opinions about AGI —to date— would not compromise my ability to hear the case dispassionately, and therefore my public statements about AGI (including this one) probably wouldn't require me to recuse myself from the case — depending on the detailed context of the case (and every ArbCom case is likely to have a peculiar context).

Back to the application of AGI by ArbCom. Given the careful limits on AGI as I understand it, I think AGI is good practice when dealing with other people, and anyone dispassionate enough to serve on ArbCom would be doing it anyway, regardless of whether there's a page advising them to (and regardless of whether or not they are for or against having such a page). --Pi zero (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Tempodivalse
Assuming good intentions when interacting with other users is a good thing, and I've come to the conclusion that, when applied correctly, it overall helps boost community morale and health. During an ArbCom case, while one should of course examine all evidence critically, I do think AGI should be applied in the sense of, for instance, not concluding that a user's intentions were bad without strong proof to support it. A good arbitrator would probably do this anyway, without it needing to be codified. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

gopher
My views on AGI are threefold, and very simple:

1) Assume that new (and existing) editors are acting in good faith until evidence to the contrary presents,

2) AGI doesn't mean "trust people to do the right thing", it means "first, assume that mistakes were made through ignorance and stupidity, not ill intent". We're all ignorant and stupid sometimes, so keep that in mind when dealing with others, and finally

3) It doesn't matter if someone is acting in good faith if their contribution is not up to par. We assume good faith of people, not content, and most definitely not sources *cough*DanRather*cough*. Regardless of whether or not a contribution was made in good faith, if it is bad, revert it and deal with hurt feelings later. Wikipedia articles are never 'finished' as such, meaning that they can afford to have errors exist in their articles for years, as long as they are corrected eventually. This is news, not an encyclopedia; we have a deadline, they don't. Because of their lack of deadline they can afford to AGF of content. We can't. Gopher65talk 00:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the second part of the question:

By the time a dispute has escalated to the point where the members of the Arbitration Committee need to be woken from their coffins and put to work, AGF/I is already out the window. One or both of the parties involved is already ignoring AGI, or else the activation of the ArbCom would never have been needed. Gopher65talk 00:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt
Not sure if this is fully formulated. It is useful at present, as an essay, in order to explore and debate these issues. Would want to be quite cautious, regarding moving this page further up to a guideline or policy page. Appears to need quite a bit more significant discussion to hash out multiple issues of concern to multiple members of the community. -- Cirt (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Question from

 * How does the apparent, current, decision of the ArbCom to allow the community to delete a draft policy which was formulated in response to a prior dispute heard by the ArbCom, sit with you?
 * Specifically; do you feel that this was the right thing for the ArbCom to do? Should the ArbCom not have overruled the deletion, insisting the community whitelist clearly defined types of userboxes that are acceptable on the project? How would you look on a near-rerun of the Amgine - Brian dispute due to frivolous, non-project-oriented userboxes being created? --Brian McNeil / talk 06:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi zero
Here is my reading of the recent decision: The earlier decision stands, and the ArbCom has put the ball back in the community's court. The ArbCom makes decisions which the community then enforces; the ArbCom is for decision-making, not enforcement. The reason the community enforces those decisions is that the community wants the ArbCom to be the final authority in disputes. So far, the community has not directly addressed whether or not it wants to see the earlier decision overturned; therefore, there should be a community discussion of whether we want such a policy and if so what it should be. A sufficiently strong consensus that the community would like to see the earlier decision overturned would then be taken by the ArbCom as encouragement to do so.

It's important to recognize that the dispute brought before the ArbCom was between Benny and the ArbCom. With twenty-twenty hindsight, that's not the optimal way for things to have gone. It would have been better if Benny had brought the question to the policy water cooler, for just the sort of community discussion that I think the ArbCom is implying should take place, and if that discussion led to a community consensus that the community would like to see the earlier decision overturned, then a petition would be made to the ArbCom — and if it were to get that far, I hope it would be called a "petition" rather than a "dispute".

I think the community can move forward with this reading of the decision, to good effect all around. Frankly, the only reason I'm not rushing over to the policy water cooler to start a constructive discussion right now is that, in order to think out properly my own thoughts for such a discussion, I'd really like to take another look at the recently deleted policy page — which I can't do at this moment because I'm not (yet (knock wood)) an admin. --Pi zero (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to say, 'thank you for such a well-judged response'. As you obviously understand, I have misgivings that community "churn" will lead to repeats of dramas that should have been buried. Your response, so far, gives me a high degree of confidence you could well-serve the community as an arbitrator. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 20:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

gopher
I'm going to answer this question in a generalized sense, rather than talking about this specific case.

ArbCom is the final dispute resolution mechanism, and its judgments are final... assuming that nothing changes in the community. But times change: user attrition occurs, people's opinions change, and the needs of the community change. For that reason I think that it's possible for ArbCom to make a perfectly valid judgment that is supported by the community, only for circumstances to change years later, requiring that judgment to be overturned. When such situations occurs I think that the proper course of action is to get clear community consensus on the matter — and that coming to consensus should involve as many active members of the community as is reasonably possible. Then, and only then, should the matter be taken up with ArbCom, who should — seeing that community consensus has been reached — overturn their original ruling.

We see this kind of thing happen all the time with ArbCom-like groups in real life (supreme courts, etc). IRL user attrition occurs (old people die), people's opinions shift over time, and the needs of society change. Any responsible court will modify its past judgments to best reflect the current will of those they serve. If they fail to take this course of action when needed they cease to be a court of the people and become a tool of despots and cabals. Gopher65talk 00:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt
As a current active Arbitrator, on this particular case, my comments are at the Requests for arbitration page. -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Question for all from BKCW8

 * How closely is your freedom of expression tied to your freedom of the press? BKCW8''' talk  06:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What are your greatest weaknesses and how will they affect the functioning of the Committee?BKCW8''' talk  06:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

gopher

 * 1) Freedom of Expression and Freedom of the Press aren't directly linked (well, it depends what country you live in I suppose), but there is an indirect connection. When the press falls victim to censorship, it almost always means that personal expression is soon to follow... or that it's already gone.
 * 2) My greatest weaknesses are Cheese and Chocolate. And possibly Star Trek. *hangs head in shame* Well, I've admitted that I'm a trekkie, so I might as well just withdraw my candidacy now... :P. Gopher65talk 00:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt

 * 1) Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are very important issues, and in some countries are tied together due to the interrelatedness of associated freedoms, or in some cases unfortunately, lack thereof. I would say both are equally important in order to produce important reporting on issues of note and concern to the reading public. -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I would like to have more time to contribute more articles, and write and review more. Hopefully I will get to do this soon, and perhaps even with regard to a bit of original reporting. -- Cirt (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Last question from Fetchcomms

 * Is there a (Wikinews) cabal? Why or why not? Is the existence/nonexistence of a cabal here a good thing? Why or why not?  — fetch · comms  21:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Bawolff

 * There is no cabal. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

gopher
Wikinews isn't big enough to have a cabal. Good natured (non-evil, formed-with-good-intent) cabals only form when a group becomes large enough that getting full consensus of the community is difficult for practical reasons. IE, Wikipedia: can you imagine trying to get a full community consensus on Wikipedia? It couldn't be done. The initial 'statement of position' threads alone would be overwhelming, and that's ignoring the necessary arguments that would follow as consensus formed; no one could possibly read through all those threads, due to the sheer number of people on Wikipedia. So a cabal of people interested in policy decisions naturally comes together. And another cabal interested in What Articles To Include In Wikipedia also forms... in fact multiple cabals of that type currently exist on Wikipedia:P (yay for deletionists and inclusionists!).

That's just what happens in large communities; a hierarchical command structure emerges, first in the form of public or (possibly unintentionally) secret cabals, and then, eventually, in the form of either a dictatorial group or an elected group. That's just life:P. Government isn't created, it's an emergent process that occurs any time a group becomes too large for simple consensus decision making to be effective. It's a natural process.

But on Wikinews? We're not big enough for cabals or governments. We're still a tiny village where group consensus is not only possible, but desirable. So no Cabals for us.

That was a longwinded answer to a seemingly simple question. Gopher65talk 02:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt
Nope. It has been most refreshing to see an influx of some new contributors, and pleasant to see others maintaining levels of activity. -- Cirt (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

More Questions from BKCW8

 * To say that wikinews is free from a cabal is foolish, what other foolish things will you say prior to the ArbCom election? BKCW8''' talk  11:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest that the non-cabalistic members of Wikinews do if those in the cabal seize the ArbComm in this election? BKCW8''' talk  11:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Wikinews have a Governor-General to dismiss ArbComs when they have lost the support of the people? If Not, Why Not? BKCW8''' talk  11:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If there isn't a Governor-General of Wikinews, will you (if electioned on to the ArbCom) move to instate me as the first Governor-General of Wikinews? If Not, Why Not BKCW8''' talk  11:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Bawolff
There is no cabal sam I am There is no cabal, even when eating green eggs and ham
 * other foolish things include:

There is no cabal here or there There is no cabal anywhere

Cirt

 * Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.-- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Participate more on the project across multiple varied capacities. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Hopefully it would never come to this. If an issue arose, there would first have to be a significant depth of discussion among the community here, and perhaps even an RFC at Meta about it. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) No. See above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Questions from Diego Grez

 * Respecting the recent incidents with User:Saki, what would be your decision in a case like this? Ban or 'mentoring'? Diego Grez return fire 20:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case you are elected Arbcom, what do you hope to do? Why? Diego Grez return fire 20:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi zero

 * There's an important point to be made here. Our ArbCom is for dispute resolution.  We aren't electing a legislature.  ArbCom isn't for dictating policy (note that the userbox whitelist was specified to have an initial state, but ultimately a whitelist can say anything from "all userboxes are allowed" to "no userboxes are allowed"), and ArbCom isn't even for deciding issues (note Users Cartman02au et al v Mrmiscellanious#Remedies).

 * My only comment on cases like Saki's in general is that, in general, every such case needs to be considered specifically. The devil is in the details.

 * Regarding the specific case, I do have something to say about my non-involvement in it. At the time, I was very glad to not be involved in such a clearly unpleasant business.  There's one thing about that that I really regretted afterward.  I came very close to remarking at the time that AGI was being misapplied to aspects of the situation that it should not have been applied to (somewhat the opposite of the Matthewedwards debacle, in which AGI was not applied to the one aspect it should have been applied to).  I should have made those comments.  I might have botched the way I said them, and made people mad at me, and not improved the outcome of that particular case — but risk of failure doesn't justify not trying (a principle I'm also using for these questions).

 * If elected to ArbCom, I would hope to do some background studying as preparation in case ArbCom action were ever needed, and never be called on to make use of that preparation — because resolving things without needing ArbCom is better for the community. --Pi zero (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt

 * 1) Ideally the latter, but proceed with caution due to the large amount of prior socking and possible more recent socking issues. Also ideally would be best to address all this on the user talk page of the master account. -- Cirt (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Answered above. -- Cirt (talk) 02:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tempodivalse

 * 1) Assuming Saki has indeed "reformed" from past misdeeds and honestly wants to contribute constructively, I'd probably support some form of mentoring. From what I've seen so far, there's no conclusive indication Saki is trying to intentionally hurt Wikinews. But we should exercise caution regarding his socks and keep a close eye on him, nonetheless.
 * 2) I don't think there's a lot to do, really. I'd probably reread some previous arbcom cases to refresh my memory about previous disputes and how they were handled by the committee. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2010 election/Nominations and voting

I'd like to nominate C628 as another arbitrator candidate. He's not been around here for that long - since February - but has, in my opinion, demonstrated overall excellent judgment and has many of the traits I want to see in an arb. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance of nomination: I accept. C628 (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) as nominator. Tempodivalse  [talk]  01:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  — Mike  moral  ♪♫  01:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  Bawolff ☺☻ 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  --HJ Mitchell  | Penny for your thoughts?   20:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  on the condition ArbCom does not stop this contributor getting into OR, and writing Feature Articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  -- the wub  "?!"  19:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  -- Pmlineditor discuss 09:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

After considerable thought, I've decided to withdraw my candidacy due to personal issues and overall disenchantment with the project. I know this is rather inconvenient, but in some sense it's better that I did it now, than resign if reelected and force a snap election. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to restand for another term on the ArbCom. Luckily, last year has been a pretty uneventful one for the committee and I hope it stays that way, but we never know when it might be needed again. I realise I've had my share of controversy lately, but still feel I can make a decent arb and am able to judge disputes fairly. I'd be honoured to serve for another year if the community has trust in me :)

Thanks for your time, Tempodivalse [talk]  22:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I support this nom. Temp, has F**ked up lately, that I will not deny.However, he is a good user, I have trust in him, and the arbcom would be lost with out his presence. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance of nomination: self-nom

Comments and questions
I see the future of Wikinews as being where we have hundreds of editors from across the globe contributing both synthesis reports and OR, so we become a free-use, neutral alternative to the deteriorating-quality mainstream media.
 * Regarding the following comment you posted in response to BNZ:
 * Do you feel that the ArbCom can somehow become involved in the direction the community is headed? Furthermore, it is my belief that contributors in high standing, such as ArbCom members, bureaucrats, etc, have an obligation to serve as unofficial leaders of the community. Would you agree with that statement? Benny the mascot (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I can imagine the ArbCom possibly affecting that, for instance if it implements and enforces a new, wide-reaching policy in response to a problem - although, depending on the circumstances, I would probably prefer that the community have some say in such a large change.
 * To your second question, I guess I could say yes and no. I don't think arbs, 'crats, and the like should use their position to try and throw their weight around or consider themselves "above" other editors, but at the same time I feel it's important for them to set a good example to the rest of the community for how to act properly. Hope this answers your question sufficiently. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Given recent events, do you believe you will be able to participate in any future ArbCom deliberations? Or, are you more likely to have taken a stance on any given dispute and, be involved, or have a conflict of interest? --Brian McNeil / talk 02:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

 * That would depend on what the dispute is. If it's between two users (similar to the MrM vs. Neutralizer case) that doesn't really affect anyone else, then no, probably not, because there would not have been much incentive for me to get involved in the first place. For things on a larger scale that draw in most of the community (such as the Matthew Edwards affair or Saqib), then maybe yes, if I expressed strong feelings into the matter. If I'd just provided a few comments and wasn't strongly advocating a particular side, though, I don't think that would make me "involved" enough to warrant a recusal. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As a followup (and an answer to my own general question posted below), I don't think an arbitrator necessarily has to recuse himself just for casually providing an opinion on a matter. Usually you're going to have some sort of opinion on an issue anyway, and there's little difference whether you actually say it or not - that opinion will still be present when you make decisions in a case. I forsee having to recuse myself if my feelings are "worked up" to a point where I'm upset and/or can't be completely certain I'll look at all sides of a dispute fairly (plus the obvious, of course, like if I'm a subject of the case and/or have an obvious COI). But I don't think it's impossible to be neutral just because you've expressed a POV per se - we do it in our articles, after all. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The dispute between MrMiscellaneous and Neutralizer had, by the time ArbCom was formed, drawn in virtually every single contributor on the project. So, you've somewhat mischaracterised that I think. The issue I wished to highlight was related to my own reasoning for standing down from ArbCom; namely, that those who take a day-to-day, close, interest in the project are highly likely to in some way or other have taken a side on a dispute. Plus, given the fiasco around Matthew Edwards, I felt it was perhaps inappropriate for me to continue in the role where the community may trust me less through the outcome of that debacle. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm probably mistaken - I wasn't around back then, I'm not familiar with the details. The question, as I see it, is whether can I remain uninvolved enough in disputes (in the sense of: not take sides to the extent that I become a participant in the actual conflict, or provide anything more than an outsider's opinion) and still be objective. (Does that make sense?) I feel I can do so most of the time. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Behave yourself! Yes, Diego needs to grow up a bit about that. At-issue is the requirement that, for ArbCom, you need to identify if you are granted, or require access to, Checkuser results or oversighted edits. Should review of a case require access to such privileged information, any non-identified ArbCom members would have to go through the process, or avoid participating in any such cases. Given the sort of things ArbCom could be asked to consider, that may make such members lesS-than-useful. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't like the way Tempodivalse works as Administrator; he's an excellent contributor though, but I don't like that his negation to publicly expose his name, for his need to get accredited reporter status by example. For his benefaction, ArbCom doesn't requires identification, but what are you hiding? Diego Grez return fire 00:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote is disqualified per election rules. Oppose votes are not allowed. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, didn't know the election rules. Well I think he will read it anyway. Diego Grez return fire 00:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't publicly revealed my name or identified to the WMF because I've never had any real need to; I'm not interested in obtaining accreditation or CU/OS. Not that I'm "hiding" anything in that sense, but prefer to maintain some degree of privacy. I don't think it's too unreasonable. In any case, I don't feel this is something that would affect my ability to serve on the ArbCom; nonetheless, thanks for your comment. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for the clarification. Totally understandable from that point of view. Diego Grez return fire 01:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, ArbCom are required to identify to WMF due to privacy rules. -  Amgine | t 02:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I've spent the past year on ArbCom without having identified, as did some other users. Tempodivalse [talk]  02:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? We don't have that requirement written down on local policy. Do you have a source for this on Meta? Benny the mascot (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless something has changed, they are only required to if they are granted checkuser or oversight as part of their duties (which very often happens, esp. on 'pedia). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just checked with Bastique about this question, and xe confirmed that yes, ArbCom members on projects which have Oversight, CheckUser, other privacy policy-related extensions do require being identified to WMF. -  Amgine | t 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Miscommunications could easily occur concerning the fine points of this. So far I have not found anything on Meta that places any cross-project requirements on ArbComs of individual projects, only the extremely vague statement that an ArbCom "is a small group of trusted users who serve as the last step of dispute resolution on some individual Wikimedia Foundation projects."  Supposing that such requirements exist, where on Meta can they be found? --Pi zero (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Diego Grez, you must have huge Balzacs to even attempt this, I like toeing the line but you are completely bad asbestos cement sheeting BKCW8'''  talk  07:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should respect other's opinions, Mr. Archbishop Monsignor of the Empire of Australia. Diego Grez return fire 22:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean, I take it, that any members who would recuse themselves rather than identify to WMF would be less-than-useful. I don't recall Tempo (or any other candidate, but perhaps I've just forgotten) saying anything one way or another about willingness to identify to WMF if such a case were to come up.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. no, they haven't. Nobody has asked, but something similar effectively operates; to whit, in relation to access to Wikinewsie.org through accreditation. Perhaps not relevant in ArbCom elections. But, I did not pose a question. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

 * H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia, To The Likes of You, Diego Grez =P...I was commending you btw...You're Like a Caped Crusader - Who Goes Around Beating Clowns Up BKCW8''' talk  06:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Point of the matter is, the rules for the operation of the ArbCom election disallows voters to "Oppose" a candidate - Everyone here (I assume) read the crtieria and was well aware of it... nice try Diego Grez, but bad luck BKCW8''' talk  06:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely, Mr. Archduke of Krakow. Diego Grez return fire 03:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's try to remain on-topic here. This should, at the least, be in the "Comments" section. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1)  per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  C628 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Bawolff ☺☻ 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  Turtlestack (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  Non-identification is an issue, but not as big an issue as it is on other projects. HJ Mitchell  | Penny for your thoughts?   20:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the few Wikinewsies I've actually met. I take it as a given he would deal with any submission to ArbCom with the required seriousness. Additionally, alongside Cirt, I feel it is important that the CheckUser privilege is available to the ArbCom should they be required to deal with a complex or messy case that requires such checks. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I have full faith in Skenmy. If I was to be unsuccessful in my nom in Arbcom below, Skenmy is the user I would like to replace me. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance of nomination: Thank you for this nomination. While I appreciate I am not the most active editor on the site, I check in most every day, am reachable on IRC and via e-mail, and keep abreast of current community issues. I accept. -- Sken   my talk 06:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1)  per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Brian McNeil / talk 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  — Gopher65talk 02:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  --HJ Mitchell  | Penny for your thoughts?   20:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  -- Pmlineditor discuss 09:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Support, experienced, level-headed. -  Amgine | t 16:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel this user has been around long enough to know what works on Wikinews, and what does not. I would, provided xe accepts, be happy to see them take on the responsibility associated with a position on the ArbCom. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 17:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance of nomination:
 * I wasn't expecting to be nominated. I accept the nomination. Gopher65talk 00:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions
Noone expected you to be nominated...I Joke, I Joke - good luck BKCW8''' talk  07:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1)  Gopher65 is a dedicated editor, reviewer and administrator. He'll do well and he has gained my trust. Diego Grez return fire 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  — Mike  moral  ♪♫  01:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  C628 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  Bawolff ☺☻ 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  --Brian McNeil / talk 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  - in addition to demonstrating the required competence is one of the two candidates who has bothered to take the time to answer virtually all of the questions --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  -- Pmlineditor discuss 10:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 11)  --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, experienced, knowledgeable (including precedence), level-headed. -  Amgine | t 16:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Pi zero has popped up regularly during recent debates and always spoken wisdom. I believe xe would make an excellent arb. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a user whose nomination I'm very happy to second. Pi zero seems to have the clear understanding that Wikinews is not Wikipedia, and a good grasp of the standards the project, and community, should be held to. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance of nomination:

I am willing to serve if the community so chooses, so I accept the nomination. One limitation to my breadth of experience is that I have never stood for admin here, which I will next head over to RFP to rectify; the community should have an opportunity to consider me for that ahead of this. --Pi zero (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1)  responsible user. Diego Grez return fire 00:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  C628 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  Bawolff ☺☻ 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Brian McNeil / talk 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  Me being a very inexperienced user and just barely eligible for voting, not a reviewer etc, I will support Pi zero alone, as he has demonstrated a good knowledge of ArbCom-related matters when I proposed rejecting the ArbCom proposal at wikibooks. Kayau (talk · contribs) 12:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  — Gopher65talk 02:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  Tempodivalse  [talk]  14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  --HJ Mitchell  | Penny for your thoughts?   20:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 11)  -- the wub  "?!"  20:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 12)  -- Pmlineditor discuss 09:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 13)  --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I trust Tris to take the responsibility seriously, and believe he qualifies as the new blood some people would prefer to see. He has also demonstrated a commitment to the project through becoming accredited and working on Original Reporting. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance of nomination: I accept this nomination and hope, if chosen, I wouldn't be needed, but will be there if I am.   Tris   14:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1)  per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Bawolff ☺☻ 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  --Brian McNeil / talk 01:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  — Gopher65talk 02:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cirt has, in my opinion, proven himself a valuable member of the community who can be trusted to handle difficult issues that might end up in front of the arbitration committee. Thus, pending acceptance, I am nominating him as a candidate. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may be allowed to, I would like to second Cirt nom. Cirt is one of those new generation of users who has come in after us oldies have started to go to seed,and shown a energy to wikinews that I admire. I would have no second thoughts for Cirt serving on the committee Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance of nomination: Thank you very much for the kind words. I accept. -- Cirt (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1)  — Mike  moral  ♪♫  01:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  C628 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  Bawolff ☺☻ 04:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  --Brian McNeil / talk 01:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  - in addition to demonstrating the required competence is one of the two candidates who has bothered to take the time to answer virtually all of the questions --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  --Trustworthy. HJ Mitchell  | Penny for your thoughts?   17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  -- Pmlineditor discuss 09:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Support per nom, some knowledge of precedence. -  Amgine | t 16:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 12)  --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Although real-life tends to see Brian not here as often as I'd like, I trust him to take ArbCom duties seriously, and, unless major issues conflict, be able to make himself available to hear any case put before the committee. Thus, I'm putting in this nomination, pending acceptance. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance of nomination:

Brian has highlighted my key failings with myself on Wikinews. I do not edit as I would like to be. However, I do check in with wikinews most days, I handle checkuser requests, and the odd bcrat action (which I am often beat to!). I continue to answer Wikinews OTRS emails. So while I am not editing as much as I once was, I am still involved, and would be honoured to have the trust of the community for another 12 months. Thanks for the nom Brian Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1) Bawolff ☺☻ 04:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) --Brian McNeil / talk 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  — Gopher65talk 02:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  --  Sken   my talk 08:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, experienced, level-headed, hands-down the best response regarding precedence. -  Amgine | t 16:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  BarkingFish (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate Bawolff. He's a long-term contributor to the project, a bureaucrat, and an oversighter. I think he's quite level-headed, fair, and would overall make a good ArbCom member. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly second Bawolff's nomination as a candidate for the ArbCom. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance of nomination: Whee! I accept. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments and questions
I Third (=P) This Nomination and Endorse This Candidate BKCW8''' talk  07:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1)  Trustworthy individual. Diego Grez return fire 00:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Tempodivalse  [talk]  01:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  — Mike  moral  ♪♫  01:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  C628 (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  --Brian McNeil / talk 01:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * as thirded -- BKCW8''' talk  06:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Voter is ineligible. No mainspace contrib before June 1. Benny the mascot (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn, I just assumed I was eligible...Oh well, Next Year =D BKCW8''' talk  06:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol epic fail, Cardinal of the Mapuche kingdom. Nice try.Diego Grez return fire 03:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  — Gopher65talk 02:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  Turtlestack (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  No issues here. HJ Mitchell  | Penny for your thoughts?   17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  -- the wub  "?!"  20:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  -- Pmlineditor discuss 09:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  --  Sken   my talk 08:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, experienced, level-headed, techy, some knowledge of precedence. -  Amgine | t 15:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 9)  --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 10)  BarkingFish (talk) 23:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been an arbcom member for a long time (the arbcom page says I have been serving since August 1, 2007) and would like to remain a member. I hope the arbcom remains a little used feature, but we should have it when we need it. --Cspurrier (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Second the nomination -  Amgine | t 23:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * 1)  per my rational Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 21:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  — Gopher65talk 02:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  --  Sken   my talk 08:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, experienced, level-headed, some concept of precedence. -  Amgine | t 15:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  BarkingFish (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to nominate InfantGorilla and am quite frankly surprised it/he/she hasn't been nominated already. In my short time at Wikinews, I have encountered it/her/him mainly through inspiring and constructive advice given towards developing articles and it/he/she seemingly has a firm grasp of what Wikinews requires. BKCW8''' talk  06:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance of nomination Declined (diff) Benny the mascot (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


text: User talk:Loi a2000

title: User talk:Loi a2000


text: User talk:Garjják

title: User talk:Garjják


text: User talk:Oska1

title: User talk:Oska1


text: User talk:1Matt20

title: User talk:1Matt20


text: User talk:Paul le poulpe sentencieux

title: User talk:Paul le poulpe sentencieux


text: User talk:ClaudPeer

title: User talk:ClaudPeer


text:
Comments:Scientists shocked at Great Barrier Reef bleaching

Comments from feedback form - "the connection of global line...."
the connection of global line.......is out too compuse marcuting. —112.206.145.181 (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Dance party broken up by police in Utah, USA

Comments from feedback form - "this happened in 2005, what ha..."
this happened in 2005, what has happened since? Was a law suit filed? What happened to those charged? At this point in time this article seems to be made up entirely... —24.7.86.161 (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


text: User talk:Samborine

title: User talk:Samborine


text: User talk:Otsbrandsllc

title: User talk:Otsbrandsllc


text: User talk:Mangzales

title: User talk:Mangzales


text:
Talk:BP: New cap on Gulf of Mexico oil well in place

Stopped
The Associated Press reports that oil flow has stopped. - 24.36.115.4 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

 * The story has been updated. How do we change the headline?--ArnoldReinhold (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


text: Comments:BP: New cap on Gulf of Mexico oil well in place


text: Talk:Tax breaks promised by Australian Prime Minister as election fast approaches


text: Comments:Tax breaks promised by Australian Prime Minister as election fast approaches


text: User talk:Jessicarosec

title: User talk:Jessicarosec


text: User talk:Vibrobis

title: User talk:Vibrobis


text: User talk:Lawleis

title: User talk:Lawleis


text: User talk:Be in Nepean

title: User talk:Be in Nepean


text: User talk:Bogdan29roman

title: User talk:Bogdan29roman


text: User talk:Anandindia

title: User talk:Anandindia


text: User talk:Pritam.ch

title: User talk:Pritam.ch


text: User talk:Prasob N

title: User talk:Prasob N


text: User talk:Deerr

title: User talk:Deerr


text: User talk:Jaivincalicut

title: User talk:Jaivincalicut


text:
Drunken man is surprised crocodile bit him

July 14, 2010 A 36 year-old man is recovering from surgery after his leg was seriously injured as a result of a bite from a five metre long named 'Fatso.' Michal Newman, who was intoxicated, climbed into its pen, claiming he wanted to play with it.

Newman is now in Hospital, Western Australia after his skirmish with the crocodile which occurred on Monday night at the Broome Crocodile Park. "I thought to myself, 'Well, I will jump the fence and go from behind its tail and pat it and sit on its back'," Newman told Radio today.

"And within like one split second before I even slightly touched its back, it already had me by my leg ...," he continued.

Experts suggest that as it is winter, the crocodile would be generally inactive at night. In warmer conditions the outcome could have been much worse.

After being grabbed by the crocodile, Newman clung to the fence and yelled at it until it let go, allowing him to scramble over the fence. Newman, nicknamed 'Crocodile Dumb-dee' by the Western Australian media, was earlier removed from a Broome tavern for drunk and disorderly conduct. After the attack however, the AAP news agency says he was allowed back in for one more drink before being taken to the hospital.

Newman says he'll never go near another crocodile again.


text:
Comments:Pope Benedict XVI criticises Prophet Muhammad's teachings

Comments from feedback form - "A stupid comment from one who ..."
A stupid comment from one who don't know exactly what he talked about. History already shows that the Christian are more evil and inhuman. —211.24.145.58 (talk) 06:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


text: User talk:Ikramthemad

title: User talk:Ikramthemad


text: User talk:Duraimurugan25

title: User talk:Duraimurugan25


text:
Thread:Comments:ARM: 2010 worst year for Afghanistan since US invasion/Comments from feedback form - "Gee Whizz...war is violent - w..."

Gee Whizz...war is violent - who've guess it? I wish someone told me this before we went over there...please note my sarcasm and please get a life ARM...


text: User talk:Falwiyah ell hamidd

title: User talk:Falwiyah ell hamidd


text: User talk:J2os

title: User talk:J2os


text:
Talk:First international flight lands at Delhi airport's new Terminal 3

Copy edit
This article looks like it needs a copy edit but I'm not completly sure what the changes look like --07:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


text:
Thread:Comments:Inventor Ronald Howes dies at age 83/Comments from feedback form - "in the vastness of it all, Ro..."

in the vastness of it all, Ron howes was a toy maker. So are millions. big deal.


text: User talk:Shwetank.dave

title: User talk:Shwetank.dave


text: User talk:Webmastermind01

title: User talk:Webmastermind01


text: User talk:Nave111

title: User talk:Nave111


text: User talk:វឿងសុវណ្ណ

title: User talk:វឿងសុវណ្ណ


text:
Wikinews:Briefs/July 13, 2010

Show Notes
Today on Wikinews : A new report states 2010 has been the deadliest year so far in the war in Afghanistan; six H1N1 flu cases appear in the Philippines; Switzerland sets Polish film director Roman Polanski free and, in history, Spain defeats the Netherlands ... in 1573.

Today is Tuesday, July 13th, 2010. I'm Dan Harlow and this is Wikinews.

ARM: 2010 worst year for Afghanistan since US invasion (0:36)
The Afghanistan Rights Monitor (ARM), an Afghan human-rights group, stated yesterday that 2010 was the worst year in terms of violence for the country since US-led troops occupied the country in 2001.

The ARM says that civilian deaths have risen and that Taliban insurgents have not been defeated despite a surge in troops in Afghanistan. According to their statement, "In terms of insecurity, 2010 has been the worst year since the demise of the Taliban regime in late 2001. Not only have the number of security incidents increased, the space and depth of the insurgency and counter-insurgency-related violence have maximized dramatically."

ARM's figures state that over 1,074 civilians were killed and over 1,500 wounded in war violence in the first half of this year, a slight increase over 1,059 deaths in the same time period in 2009. "Up to 1,200 security incidents were recorded in June, the highest number of incidents compared to any month since 2002," the ARM commented.

Over half of civilian deaths in the first six months of this year were caused by Taliban insurgents that showed "little or no respect for the safety and protection of non-combatants in their armed rebellion against the government and its foreign supporters." The group also said that the second highest cause of civilian deaths were suicide attacks by the Taliban which have killed 127 people.

Also, the ARM reported that a reduction of US and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) air strikes reduced their share of civilians killed. The air strike reduction had been ordered by the former commander of foreign forces, General Stanley McChrystal, who was fired by US president Barack Obama for making rude comments about top White House government officials.

In December of last year, US president Obama sent an additional 30,000 soldiers into the country in an effort to halt the Taliban's influence in the region. However, the ARM says in its mid-year report, titled "Civilian Casualties of Conflict", that the move failed to have any lasting effect, and that "the insurgency has become more resilient, multi-structured and deadly".

According to the ARM, most of the injuries and deaths were attributed to homemade bombs — otherwise known as improvised explosive devices. These bombs are considered the Taliban's main weapon.

140,000 soldiers from both the US and NATO are stationed in Afghanistan; another 10,000 are scheduled to enter the landlocked Asian country in the next few weeks. Over 350 US and NATO troops have been killed so far this year, compared with 520 last year. Over 30 troops have been killed in the first 12 days of July.

Six H1N1 cases appear in the Philippines (3:25)
Six students in Ilocos Sur, Philippines tested positive for the H1N1 influenza virus. This occurrence is part of a rise in A(H1N1) and malaria during recent weeks in two provinces, as was the confirmation of twenty cases of malaria in Zambales.

Officials from the Department of Health say that they are not surprised, as A(H1N1) cases began to appear at about the same time last year, coinciding with the onset of the local flu season. Other health officials believe that the rise is due to the onset of the rainy season. The department noted that all prior cases in the Philippines have been "mild" and patients fully recovered. In the current case, five of those affected have recovered, while one still shows slight symptoms.

"If we look at the pattern for this month, it was also the same time last year when cases of A(H1N1) started increasing," says Dr. Lyndon Lee Suy. The Department of Health believes that the appearance of the virus should not cause distress; however, Suy warns that a new strain could appear.

The Philippines reported their first case of A(H1N1) in May 2009 in a ten-year-old child from the United States. According to the World Health Organization, 214 countries and territories have confirmed cases of A(H1N1), with a total of more than 18,311 deaths. As of June 2009, around 129 cases have been reported in the Philippines.

 * Music credit Test Drive by Zapac

Australia's Governor-General cuts trip short over looming election (5:41)
Australia's Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, has cut Singapore and the UK from her official winter trip, keeping only France on her schedule, due to expectations that Prime Minister Julia Gillard will arrive at Government House in the coming days to request the Governor-General to call an election.

A spokesperson for the Governor-General said that "She wanted to be out of the country for as little time as possible [...] She was supposed to go Singapore and UK and now she's just going to France".

There has been much speculation as to when Gillard was to request that the election be called by the Governor-General, with 21st and 28th of August being most likely. This would be the first time since 1987 that an election was held during the winter.

As a result, Ms Bryce will head to Fromelles in France to represent Australia in a dedication ceremony and then return home, bringing her ten day trip down to five days.

In a speech today in Adelaide, South Australia Gillard suggested that she wanted to achieve a mandate by the people through the usual means of the Governor-General.

"I will ask the Australian people for their trust to move forward," Gillard said in the same speech.

According to current Nielsen and Galaxy polls, on a two-party preferred basis, Julia Gillard leads her rival, opposition leader Tony Abbott, 52-48 percent.

Somone who will not be cutting their overseas stay short,

Switzerland sets Polish film director Roman Polanski free (6:59)
On Monday, Swiss authorities refused a request from the U.S. to extradite Polish film director Roman Polanski on charges stemming from the 1977 accusation that he had sex with an American thirteen-year-old girl, Samantha Geimer, in Los Angeles, California. Though the film director had pleaded guilty to rape and unlawful sexual intercourse, he fled to France before he could be sentenced.

U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said that "[t]he rape of a 13-year-old girl by an adult who should know better, and that does know better, is a crime. We will continue to seek justice in this case, and we will evaluate our options."

However, Switzerland has said no appeal to its decision was possible. Polanski was arrested last September by Swiss police when he arrived in Zurich to receive a lifetime career award at a film festival. The Swiss were acting on a request from the U.S. government.

The Swiss Justice Ministry based its decision on the fact that it was unable to determine whether Polanski had already served the full sentence for his crime. This was due to the Los Angeles Superior Court in May ruling that the records of the closed-door 1977 hearings had to remain secret.

In past hearings, Polanski's lawyers argued that there were irregularities in the original handling of the case, and U.S. judge Peter Espinoza agreed there was misconduct by the original judge.

On this day in history (8:28)

 * Music credit Danse Macabre - No Violin

In the Eighty Years' War the city of Haarlem in the Netherlands was put under a bloody siege by a Spanish army that wanted to reclaim the rebellious city for Philip II, the Spanish King.

The city of Haarlem had a moderate view in the religious war that was going on in the Netherlands at that time. The city managed to escape from the Reformed iconoclasm in 1566 that affected other cities in the Netherlands. When the city of Brielle was conquered by the Geuzen revolutionary army on April 1, the Haarlem municipality did not immediately start supporting the Geuzen. Initially, most city administrators -- unlike many citizens -- did not favor open revolution against Philip II of Spain, who had inherited rule of the Netherlands from his father, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. However, after much political debate the city officially turned against Philip II on July 4, 1572.

The ruler of Spain was not pleased, and sent an army up north under command of Don Fadrique (Don Frederick in Dutch), son of the Duke of Alva. On November 17, 1572 all citizens of the city of Zutphen were murdered by the Spanish army, and on December 1 the city of Naarden suffered the same fate.

On December 11, 1572 the Spanish army put Haarlem under siege. The city was not very strong, militarily speaking. Although the city was completely surrounded by city walls, they were not in a very good shape. The area around the city could not be inundated, and offered the enemy a lot of places the set up a camp. However, the existence of the Haarlemmermeer (a great lake) nearby, made it difficult for the enemy to cut off the transportation of food into the city completely.

In the Middle Ages it was not usual to fight in the winter, but the city of Haarlem was crucial and Don Fadrique stayed and put the town under siege. The first two months of the siege the situation was in balance. The Spanish army was digging tunnels, to reach the city walls and blow them up. The defenders made tunnels to blow up the Spanish tunnels. The situation became worse for Haarlem on March 29, 1573. The Amsterdam army, faithful to the Spanish king, occupied the Haarlemmermeer and effectively blocked Haarlem from the outside world. The hunger in the city grew, and the situation became so tense that on May 27 many (Spanish-loyal) prisoners were taken from the prison and murdered.

After seven months the city surrendered on July 13, 1573. Usually, after such a siege, there would be a period of time that the soldiers of the victorious army could pillage the city, but the citizens were allowed to buy themselves and the city free for 240,000 guilders.

The written assurances that had been given to the city were respected, but the whole garrison (which included many English, French Hugenots and Germans) was executed with the exception of the Germans. 40 burghers considered guilty of sedition were executed as well; the besiegers having run out of ammunition, many of them were drowned in the Spaarne river.

Although ultimately the city could not be kept for the Prince of Orange, the siege showed other cities that the Spanish army was not invincible. This idea, and the great losses suffered by the Spanish army, helped the cities of Leiden and Alkmaar in their sieges. The latter city would later defeat the Spanish army, a major breakthrough in the Dutch Revolt. In the Sint-Bavo church the following words can still be read:

In this great need, in our uttermost misery, we gave up the city, forced by hunger, not that he took her by storm.

Outro
And those are the top headlines for Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

This has been the Audio Wikinews brief. To receive the latest news, please visit wikinews.org, presenting up-to-date, relevant, newsworthy and entertaining content without bias. Wikinews is a free service and is funded by your generous donations. Click on the donate link on our homepage to learn how you can contribute. This recording has been released under the Creative Commons 2.5 License.

title: Wikinews:Briefs/July 13, 2010


text:
Dog's throat cut in Cairns, Australia

July 15, 2010 In what the calls a "horrific" case of animal cruelty, a dog's jaw was taped shut, and its throat cut, in, Australia.

The Staffordshire mix, who was found by police in a critical condition last Thursday, was reportedly struggling to breathe and bleeding heavily due to her throat being slashed and her muzzle being bound.

"The way they cut was almost down to the larynx, so muscles were cut but luckily they missed the jugular veins," said Sarah Gill, the vet who stitched the 10 cm long, 3 cm deep cut.

In a statement reported on Tuesday, Inspector Cameron Buswell, a law enforcement officer with the RSPCA animal welfare charity, said it is hard to comprehend that there are people in the community capable of this level of cruelty.

"This would have to be up there as one of the more horrific cases we've dealt with [...]The poor dog must have been petrified. How she didn't die is miraculous." he said.

Named 'Franky' by rescuers, the dog is progressing well along her road to recovery, has a warm, loving and kind nature, and has begun to come out of her shell, Buswell said.

"She is a really nice natured animal and she loves being with people."

This has become apart of string of violent attacks on pets in Queensland. Another dog in North Queensland named 'Boof' was beaten and left to die with a 30 kg chain around his neck in January. In May, a family dog in had its throat slit and a rubber band placed around the wound, twice.

The RSPCA is appealing for information from the public regarding the person or persons responsible for the latest attack.

title: Dog's throat cut in Cairns, Australia


text: User talk:Ushbc

title: User talk:Ushbc