User talk:Tony1

English Wikipedia talk page Tony1 (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Please consider the contents of Template:guideline before editing this project-wide guideline, especially the sentence "When editing this page, please ensure your revision is a reasonable reflection of community consensus." Have you suggested your changes on the talk page or on the Water cooler? - Amgine | ^t 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

In general, edits to policy and guidelines of long-standing are discussed before editing. This is a courtesy to avoid policy edit-warring, and to actually gain consensus where there may be differences of opinion. Only one of the sentences you altered had a specific change in meaning moving from the passive voice to the active, and I sincerely doubt there will be any disagreement with the changes you propose, but it is preferable to discuss *first*, edit *later* when it comes to items such as the SG (which has, unfortunately, been the site of several large edit wars.) - Amgine | ^t 17:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have been responding on your talk page to your personal edits, and am currently being edit-conflicted by your edits to the article talk page. Please be considerate and allow another contributor the opportunity to reply, explain, or respond before complaining about their failure to do so. - Amgine | ^t 17:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh my heavens, sorry, but I can't be held responsible for your edit conflicts. Do not blame me. How was I meant to know what you were doing at your computer? Tony1 (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ah, my apologies, I did not intend to blame you for the edit conflicts, merely wished to point out that I was somewhat delayed in providing you gratification. I have since been able to respond to your comments on the talk page. I do suggest that you consider starting that introduction from scratch - there have been far too many cooks over the years (my first edits to it were in Jan 2005, and I was far from the first.) - Amgine | ^t 17:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I have replied at the Style guide talkpage. - Amgine | ^t 18:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
• I have replied at the Style guide talkpage. - Amgine | ^t 18:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have little opinion on your changes to the style guide, but I will say that you need to read this. "On" and "upon" are not interchangeable, even though they're sometimes used that way in slang writing. Along similar lines, the semicolon you removed was entirely proper. It was also unnecessary to add "an" before "emphasis" in order to make the sentence grammatically correct.

The original sentence flowed slightly better than the 2 you replaced it with, with two exceptions: the "so" should have been removed, and the "especially" should have been added. Thoughts do not necessarily have to be broken down into the smallest factored sentences possible; sometimes longer sentences that are constructed of 2 conjoined thoughts can be more effective at maintaining the pacing and flow of the paragraph. But yeah, the style guide could use a good copyedit:P. Gopher65_talk 01:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

And by the way...

Do you have a problem statement? that is, what is measurably and identifiably broken. I ask this because I do not wish to become embroiled in any of your usual guerrilla war tactics. - Amgine | ^t 16:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

<Sigh> Is this really the culture here? To be negative about any attempt to collaborate? I sense there's a distinct xenophobia about. I find it most unhealthy that you assume bad faith from the outset. I'd have thought the opening to the thread stated the problem well enough. The text could do with trimming—the removal of redundancy and repetition—and possibly a minor tweaking in the tone. Now, accusing a user, first off, of "you usual guerrilla war tactics", is pretty nasty, isn't it? Have I been nasty to you?

Nasty? no. Instantly assuming bad faith on the part of everyone who does not roll over and accept your edits as holy, yes, but I do not consider that nasty. Of course, you must realize when you first tromped into Wikinews:Style guide I checked out your edits WMF-wide, including fr.wp, en.wt, etc. It was a prudent course of action. I noted then your involvement in a couple of efforts to 'Americanize' various elements of the en.wp through the hobgoblin of standardization, and the tactics you used at that time. I also tried rather politely not to tear your contributions to little bits, even though they introduced nearly so many grammatical errors as they resolved. You and I are merely gifted dabblers; we should not consider ourselves authorities. For this reason I suggested you bring your *suggestions* to the talk page, rather than (as your first edits to a project) altering an accepted project policy which, incidentally, is usually in the top-ten linked online news style guides. - Amgine | ^t 21:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I took a quick glance through your recent contribs; I don't know where Amgine's coming from (I expect xe'll explain shortly) on this, but that is about on par with what you're complaining about here. Pray tell, how was Diego to know that? It was the only edit from a then-unknown account. Xe's only trying to help, even if it wasn't helpful. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Removing text from a user page is not on, unless it's to protect against vandalism or outrageously offensive attack and the like. The protocol is to put a note on my page asking whether I requested the bot-post. People get very upset when others lumber in without asking and make significant changes to the text of others on their talk page. You would, too.

I'm done with this negative, personalised, attack-oriented discussion. I came here to deal with text: it's what I do. I'll be pleased to get back to improving the style guide. Tony1 (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't actually disagree with you, but just the same, xe was making the effort to help. I've watched Diego go from a guy I blocked on enwp to someone I was happy to support being allowed to return there. Tick him off by all means, but bear in mind it was well intentioned - even if it was a pain. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was a bit blunt. I will message him again to soften the situation. Tony1 (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Bluntness and brutal honesty does have its place, but in this case I think that was the the right way to go about it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I should still like you to give at least a sentence or two synopsis on why you believe edits to WN:SG are vital. - Amgine | ^t 21:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's not necessary to place flashing lights around what I wrote about how the text needs to be improved, but I've added a sentence that summarises key issues. More may arise, but that is up to people to debate. As for "vital", nothing much on Wikinews will cause loss of life; but where there's the opportunity and the will to improve important text, the work should be done. Tony1 (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps I was less-than precise enough for you: Why do you feel you need to edit WN:SG, since you neither use nor are affected by it? - Amgine | ^t 19:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not so much a matter of precision: you've changed the question. To answer your second issue first, I don't think you know whether I am "affected by" Wikinews, since you can't know whether I read it. I care a lot about it, because I see the rise of non-commercial Internet news as an exciting part of the Foundation's work in the light of the inevitable decline in the business model of broadsheets and other hard-copy daily news publications, and the apparent difficulty of paying for online news produced by commercial outlets.

The "Headlines" section looks good, but I will raise a few issues on the talk page soon—issues I can't by myself solve.

I would be pleased if others took the mantle in proposing copy-edits of at least some of the sections, but if that doesn't happen, I'll keep going. The opening, I think, required the most changes. Tony1 (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think we will have to agree to disagree. Ime a problem statement must present the context, the "in what way am I the proposer related to the problem." Which, I note, you have still not addressed other than "I care a lot about it", something I hope we can agree is a somewhat vague reference. - Amgine | ^t 02:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

---

• You have, what I consider should be, the final response on the WN:SG talk. If it is unclear, make constructive contributions in the main namespace before going near policy. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Two admins replied to your recent comment: posts can be seen at Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts/Archive_6#Enough.

(By the way, I am not hiding your comments: I am archiving the whole thread, as it is off topic.)

--InfantGorilla (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

No, it is very much on topic, as I've explained there. That you would archive calls by a number of editors for Mr McNeil to justify his involved admin action and his abusive behaviour exposes you to accusations of cover-up. Sorry, there it is. Transparency is the proper course of action. Tony1 (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that WN:AAA is the page used to alert admins, such as myself, to take action, such as speedy deleting a page, blocking a vandal etc. From what I have read of the events, I would suggest that this has now moved into the area of dispute resolution. This is not an attempt to sweep anything under the carpet, just an attempt to try and focus on the matter in hand. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I've supposedly de-involved at least for the time being, but hopefuly I can help clarify this. The comments are not appropriate for that page. I've got no problems with this dicussion being had - just not there. (A side-nate is greater clarification of when such conversations cease to be appropriate for AAA may need put up somewhere...). I might suggest that linking to the archive and restarting from there may be better based on the sheer volume of material, rather than restore it somewhere, but I won't actually object to a simple restore to a more appropriate place. One apparently unintended consequence of chasing the discussion away without first regenerating it elswhere is that the conversation appears to have fragmented into many pieces. Obviously, it would be best if it were recentralised - which is, I think, something you'll agree with. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

The more you look at WN, the sadder it gets. Mr McNeil's recent abuse of me is clearly not an isolated case. Good people are leaving at an astonishing rate. Why?

Here's a staff expert from the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns this project:

I am gravely concerned about some of the quotes that I'm seeing from Brian. In particular, I believe that this comment is beyond the pale. I'm embarrassed for our projects that someone in a leadership role left a message like that. While there's no meta policy for civility, there is a moral requirement that we treat each other with kindness and respect. I wish I could say that this is the first "slip up" of the type from Brian, but I can't help but see a pattern of uncivil discourse that is troubling from an acknowledged leader in this project.

I'm not going to try to tell this community how to treat it's own... but I strongly encourage you to think about how you want to be represented. These types of affairs are the ones that bubble up when people talk about bullying on our projects. These are the ones that contribute to public perception. Please know that I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, recent uncivil statements from Brian, particularly given what appears to be an ongoing and worsening problem.

Philippe Beaudette, Head of Reader Relations, Wikimedia Foundation.

Like, WOW. But no one, including BRS (who I see is climbing up the pole like everyone else to be a crat), nor Gorilla, nor Pi zero, nor Bawolff, nor Shakata, has the integrity to follow up on this.

Dudes, you have to get rid of Brian McNeil, and soon. Someone in a position of power and authority, a model for behaviour, who calls someone "You fucking ignorant bastard", is a serious liability for the whole of the Foundation. It begs the reptiles in FOXnews to do a nice little piece on it, dragging all of the projects down with it. Please do not let that happen. Tony1 (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Agreed. McNeil thinks Wikinews is run by him. But it is a Wiki and he drives talented people away be being so territorial and arrogant. Greg L (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is hardly appropriate to try and drag Graham into some dispute or other that you have with me.

You are clearly, and unambiguously, trolling people on Wikinews in a manner which could readily be construed as borderline libel and defamation; in addition to having the potential to become outright disruption.

You decided to start your contributions to Wikinews by editing policy; on the code of ethics and anonymous sources, your edits were perfectly reasonable. You then decided to tackle the project's style guide where your first edit introduced a typographical error, and your second edit to correct it removed relevant wiki markup. The talk page details associated grammatical errors said changes introduced.

Now, you've obviously still not found the relevant reference to The Other Place, which might explain your error in assuming such is a slur when we use the term for Wikipedia. Again, through cultural ignorance, you also assume I - and other Wikinews contributors - hate Wikipedia. Again, incorrect; it is Wikipedia's un-encyclopedic obsession with recent events which is vexing. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am pretty offended by your existence, actually. It's your problem, not mine. Anything you can do to improve that situation? See my post at Graham's page. Tony1 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Good. Now that's cleared up, maybe you'd like to share the rest of your little list, of people you'd not miss.

You are excellent at twisting other peoples' words, of pulling quotes out-of-context and generally inflicting yourself on other people in most-unwelcome ways.

Me? I'm usually abruptly blunt, abrasive and far-from-tolerant of idiocy.

That does not preclude praising good work where I see it from those who've otherwise pissed me off no-end.

Your comments on Graham's page aren't relevant; you're trying to talk to someone who has not edited here for over four months, and stopped abruptly for no apparent reason despite being in good standing and efforts made to welcome xe.

Is that me driving away good contributors? Or were you influential in Graham ceasing to contribute here? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what goes on in Graham's mind, but as you must be aware, there's a long list of good WN editors who have left after your abuse, which continues on in your latest post here. I suspect Graham doesn't think much of you; but why not ask him? You just don't get it, do you. Being nasty and negative to editors drives them away. And I see your little lackey Amgine doing your bidding below, of whom I had come to a very low opinion soon after I arrived here two years ago. It's all very sad that your fascist tendencies continue to hold sway over this site. Tony1 (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi Tony1.

Generally, at Wikinews, we don't encourage co-opting a new user's talk page for an ongoing feud. I'm sure this is enough of a hint.

- Amgine | t 18:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I will post where I wish, thank you very much. Stay off my talk page. Tony1 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• You've had your fun now, Tony1. You've admitted to trolling, asked me to commit suicide, and you treat reality the way only a relative of Sean Hannity could. Like him, you only belong in a newsroom owned by News Corp. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Not fun; disgust. And disappointment at the misallocation of donors' money. Tony1 (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I forgot to add "calling me a facist" to your list of slurs. I assume, since you feel qualified to decide how donors' money (including mine) should - or should not - be used, you will be standing for trustee at the earliest possible opportunity? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Brian McNeil, this might be a tad over what we would want here... a hint is a hint, we do not have to fight for it. Gryllida 04:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• No. For exactly the same reason you made above. Luckily I gave up my bits on this project, because your actions certainly warrant a cooling off period for you but as the target of your incivility I might possibly be open to an accusation of conflict of interest. Not that it would have stopped me in this case. I have faith in the project admins, however. Your attempts at cyberbullying have one redeeming characteristic for those without bits: entertainment. - Amgine | t 21:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

You both appear to be blind the to problem, which emanates from you, and not me. But keep externalising the blame if it makes you feel better. I have the advantage of not being part of your fascist empire. And Brian, you might have learnt that blocking someone for trumped-up reasons just ends up making you look bad. Have you ceased issuing insults such as "you fucking ignorant moron" (see above)? I certainly hope so. Tony1 (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would concur with Amgine that we should at least try to be friendly to newcomers. Talk pages are intended to be used for feedback on users' actions and what Amgine did is entirely proper usage of a talk page. That said, I would encourage us all to not escalate or further dramatise this issue, and focus on news instead. Thank you. Gryllida 04:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Um ... you concur with the accusations of "cyberbullying", do you ... and the veiled threat to block me. Friendliness is the direct opposite of what I've experienced here, and you're showing that you're part of this very sick group-think. I just dropped in to en.WN because I was alerted to something by Graham. I thought I'd test the waters to see if the abusive mentality persists: answer is a resounding YES. My view of Wikinews is reconfirmed, which is all your problem, not mine.

Here's a WMF opinion that you all seem to have passed over, pasted in here from above, just to remind you. The appalling thing is that ... Brian McNeill is still here, master of the realm, chief bully handing out abuse.

I am gravely concerned about some of the quotes that I'm seeing from Brian. In particular, I believe that this comment is beyond the pale. I'm embarrassed for our projects that someone in a leadership role left a message like that. While there's no meta policy for civility, there is a moral requirement that we treat each other with kindness and respect. I wish I could say that this is the first "slip up" of the type from Brian, but I can't help but see a pattern of uncivil discourse that is troubling from an acknowledged leader in this project.

I'm not going to try to tell this community how to treat it's own... but I strongly encourage you to think about how you want to be represented. These types of affairs are the ones that bubble up when people talk about bullying on our projects. These are the ones that contribute to public perception. Please know that I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, recent uncivil statements from Brian, particularly given what appears to be an ongoing and worsening problem.

Philippe Beaudette, Head of Reader Relations, Wikimedia Foundation.

Yup. Tony1 (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have not expressed any opinion about the "the accusations of "cyberbullying", do you ... and the veiled threat to block me". They are something either in the past -- that one would normally forgive and forget -- or, if raised recently in this discussion, beyond its point.

This is the idea I was referring to, saying that I concur with it:

Quote

---

I hardly see a need in the rest of this discussion -- all that was needed was that you see the quoted line and take it onboard. I currently have not expressed any opinion about the other statements of other people involved in this discussion. --Gryllida 21:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• Tony1, nice of you to date-stamp your quoted remarks, I am sure Philippe fully approves of your use of them as a weapon (/sarcasm).
• Since the departure of Tempodivalse to create the failed fork OpenGlobe, and remarks made over the serious dispute xe and I got into over a number of issues, particularly that implementing Assume Good Faith is antithetical to credible news production, I have made considerable efforts to be more reasonable and, in particular, to avoid language which results in those of a sensitive nature needing smelling salts.

Yet, as you see above Gryllida, friends of Tempo still work on the assumption my middle name is Benito. I am asked by Tony1 if I have stopped behaviour which xe is wilfully engaging in; one would think that inviting him to try contributing content here after a gap, despite his "Bull in a China Shop" meddling with the Style Guide, and subsequent acrimonious dispute with much of the community, might count as some evidence of such.

No. Apparently Tony1 doesn't do content, and holds a grudge on someone else's behalf.

Xyr comments here are made with one aim, xe wants a block which could be taken as unreasonable, as grounds to go to the Foundation and ask for Wikinews to be closed, because he does not like me.

It's that, or he truly, and honestly, does mean that he would like me to go and commit suicide. Xe has certainly not disputed that interpretation of his remarks, nor has xe disputed that his contributions here are intentional trolling.

In the two years since Tony1 cast his opinion of Wikinews in concrete, we've had two classes of journalism students work on-project as part of their coursework, xyr friend's fork has failed and bit the dust and, despite xe portraying the project - with me in any position whatsoever - being evil incarnate, pushed out 60+ articles on a major sporting event.

Wikinews' problem is not me; it is, as so-skillfully demonstrated above, people like Tony1 who never forget, and never forgive. What they never forgive is Wikinews not being a minor annex of Wikipedia.

I will ask one more time, since the comments of others permitted Tony1 to avoid giving an answer:

When, Tony1, do you intend to run for a WMF Trustee position so you can close down Wikinews?

--Brian McNeil / ^talk 05:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

All of this becomes overly overescalated, dramatised for a number of reasons.

• You had talked to some of the people involved before -- brian mcneil and Amgine -- and it was odd experience, but you have to talk to them again; you feel that they may be biased and/or wrong. Sadly in a small community like Wikinews, you may have to talk to the same people more than once; not overreacting to such situation could be a good plan.
• There is a mess here out of just a couple lines of yours on another user's talk page. We do not want you to plead guilty or anything here -- Amgine's original intention was that you see their concern, but they did not demand you to apologise or anything (while understanding and an apology would be a good plan, too!).
• This is Internet. It is not easy to display the emotions and atmosphere behind every written message.

I am kindly asking two things.

• That the people involved before attempt to take a break and try to not keep being confrontational here (as you already read the first message in this section, which would be about all I would personally want here.) I am sure that you have understood what others want, and proving who is right is beyond the point.
• That all of us try to squash this issue and move our efforts to the primary namespace -- news.

Thanks. -Gryllida 07:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

• I'm flattered that I could be the centre of attention so easily. I never intended this. I have no time for it. So ... byeeee. Tony1 (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I support this removal of a not very helpful remark from my user talk page. We are well aware of your opinion that Wikinews should be shut down. That is off-topic for this discussion. If you can't contribute constructively to a dialog then please leave everyone alone. For what it is worth, I think some of your concerns about Wikinews are valid, but I also think that if the community has aims other than to be a destination news site, then those concerns are not relevant.

If our standard is: does Wikinews produce something similar to the comprehensive and balanced front page coverage of major news sites, then of course Wikinews isn't working and isn't likely to work anytime soon. That's an interesting and valid point to make - once.

But what is emerging from the discussion, as far as I can tell, is that the community is happier with a different and potentially more achievable goal.

In any event, my point is that jumping in to hammer away on tired old points is not helpful. Please stop doing that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

They're not tired; they're supported by a sizeable proportion of Wikimedians. Tony1 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Being supported by a lot of people doesn't make them any less tired. :-) I do think it is a valid question as to whether or not Wikinews (or any project, frankly) should be shut down. Even more interesting is to think philosophically about what processes or procedures ought to be the norm when thinking about project openings and closures. But all of that is completely off topic for the discussion at hand, which is about chewing on what the overall purpose is of Wikinews, as seen by the passionate contributors themselves, to see if there are interesting ways to move forward which will be beneficial for the project. Simply repeating in an angry tone the arguments that it should be shut down ignores something very important. (This is particularly true if the criteria being used to make the decision are incorrect!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Er, I think the trigger in this case might have been the word "meetups". If you look at Tony's edit again, you can see he talks about translation bureaus (which it looks like Brian McNeil has already responded to), and the use of WMF funds, although I'm not sure what "application" he is talking about.

I did note that the original invitation to participate was for "currently active Wikinewsies, as well as of people who are critical of Wikinews". I did not intend to participate further myself, as I do not consider myself to be either one. My role is generally to summarize and to break down chunks of information into digestible pieces.

My take of the current progress of the discussion is that it is in a "brainstorming" phase, where any and all ideas must be welcomed without evaluation, especially negative evaluation, since that can choke off the flow of ideas. That said, it's difficult to understand what the ground rules here are, since the discussion itself is on a talk page, which is where any meta-discussion is usually carried out in order to avoid sidetracking the main discussion.

It is indeed interesting to see the participants' focus on inputs. I have for some time had the idea that the Wikinews people were interested in that project from an educational standpoint...as a place to polish their writing or English or some other skills. That is certainly one of the things I value most about my current relationship with the Signpost--the opportunity to work alongside people perceived as having certain skill sets, and was also a motivating factor in my previous involvement with en.wiki.

–Neotarf (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply