- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.
- See past discussion here.
Last update on Hebrew Wikinews, was on April 28th. and past other updates before was about once a 2-3 month. I don't think we need to keep this project. --Itzike 08:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Support --Itzike 11:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with Itizke. The project is "dead" for a few years now, and afaik has never been active since it's inauguration. It seems to me (unfortunately) that the Hebrew speaking community isn't really interested in this project. The project should be closed and the effort turned to other Hebrew Wikimedia projects. Wikinews is a kind of project that must be updated at all times, in contrast to other projects where information can be, in some cases, not updated. Broccoli • talk page 08:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree as well. Carny 09:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Although inactivity is not usually a valid reason, I think Wikinews is a different case. A Wikipedia can have 100,000 articles created 5 years ago, the majority will still be accurate. If Wikinews is not updated in a long time, it loses relevance quickly. --Node ue 14:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Strong support - As one of the two sole contributors to he.wikinews for this past year or more (probably more), I'm sorry to say that I too support it. I go in every day, sometimes twice a day, to make sure there's no abusive edits. That is all I do, and even that is not really a hard job. Even the trolls have left us. I can go on doing this for ever, but I see no point in keeping this project alive and allowing the occasional abuser to spray they're graffiti on some random article. if a core of volunteers will emerge and wish to resurrect this dead project - we could always re-open it. Havelock 17:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Support - The current sysop of the project, Havelock, does now allow new initiatives ("because no major changes should be make until a bigger community exists"), such as adding talkbacks to the news pages. In fact, when testing the idea of talkbacks, I was de-ooped and bullied away from the site by him. I support this request for one reason, and one reason only - so that Havelock will withdraw his hands from this site, and a more liberal "manager" will be allowed to administrate the site. As long as he is sysop there, and blocks all new initiatives, the site simply has no hope. Yonidebest 15:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Seems more you're supporting a proposal to close me, than the project. Havelock 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are 100% correct. I could have suggested to de-op you from the project, but as that seems unlikely (I heard you have 'connections', and my name has been smeared here by your actions to de-op me), this is the best way to achieve the desired result. Yonidebest 22:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yonidebest, please stop at once this mud throwing contest. This is not a kindergarten and this discussion is very serious and not your playground. Broccoli • talk page 16:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- broccoli, wth are u talking about? I have a serious explanation why the project needs to be closed. As a friend of havelock, perhaps u can explain the situation to him as he yet does not understand why the project is stuck for so many years. I dont know why u trash my ideas and my opinions in that tone. Did he put u up to this? Don't bother to answer, just try to remember, Here and in the wikipedia from which I left for a few Montjs because of your behavior, don't respond if u have nothing good so say. Yonidebest 19:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- 1. I'm no friend of Havelock. I know him. I cooperated with him. But we never had any connection other than this, which may qualify as friendship. Also, Havelock has once removed my rollback permissions. None of the people which are close to me would have done that. That's for your usual Ad hominem argument.
- 2. As for your leaving and for the sake of transparency - you left after I caught you using a sock puppet in order to push external links to your sexuality website, which you yourself admitted in an earlier discussion. Once your attempt to get me blocked for what you yourself said was quashed by the sysops, you went ballistic and started using legal threats.
- 3. This is your behavior, and yours only. It is pity that even after all this time you haven't learned nothing about wiki-work and stopped accusing everyone for your own behavior. Broccoli • talk page 22:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Close the project immediately! Burstling Miraculous Power 15:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note: user blocked for abusing multiple accounts. See blocklog. -- Marco Aurelio 08:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support closure. All (wiki)news should be about recent events, not past events, that's called history. —stay (sic)! 15:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose --N KOziTalk 10:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
I read Wikiquote instead of Wikinews. Abstain. While inactivity still aplies a Wikinews is different for me. --MarcoAurelio 15:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
, inactivity is now not a valid reason for closing a project and it has content
. -- Dferg
10:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Would like to see a revival of Wikinews with a focus on magazine-style articles (interviews, memoirs, travelogues, op-eds, investigative articles etc), not on breaking news. I think this is where its future is, and I think there is a future indeed. Harel 13:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- And who will maintain this? The Wikinews has failed once. How we can know that it wouldn't fail again? As of today it's a dead project. Broccoli • talk page 14:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Even though I support the closure, I must comment on your remarks. Who will maintain it? The same people who will write the articles. How can we know that it wouldn't fail again? We can't, but we couldn't know that about any project. Failure will cost us nothing. If people wish to try out again - I see no reason to deny them. Havelock 17:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Havelock, i once tried to take the site in a new direction by adding talkbacks. you and another sysop removed my editions stating there is no community so we cant make any such 'major' changes to the site, then u got me de-opped by a steward. now, although no community exists, u think it is ok to change the concept of the site? is this not a major change? i am waiting, to this day, for an apology for ur thug-like behviour. Yonidebest 19:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- We needed to revert your changes since they were made without anyone's consent, even though at the moment we had 3 other members of the community - none of them were consulted with. After we reverted your changes none of them agreed to re-instate them. The change Harel is proposing is of course completely community-depended - without a community to write the articles he speaks about - well, it just couldn't be. That's kinda the point. If such a community of volunteers will present itself they will have every right to take the project in the direction they think best, as long as they keep to the general spirit of the project per Wikimedia. Havelock 04:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any reason to turn this discussion into a mud throwing match, so I'll be brief. All projects are open to changes by their communities. That goes without saying. Harel suggests an idea that a possible future community might adopt one day. That's fine. You also suggested an idea, but the community at the time (well, 3 other people that were not you) declined. If in the future a community will re-emerge and accept your idea - that's also fine. If this hypothetical community will accept a proposal to color the main page in blinding pink with green polka dots - that's also fine. So long as the community supports it. Also, I was forced to ask for removal of your rights only after you went behind the entire community's back and asked for them, without any approval from the active users at the time. Havelock 15:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- a) How could u three deny the idea, if it was not yet introduced and discused properly? Fo I need to remind you that I was kicked out of the project with no discussion what so ever? You didnt even approach me to understand my intentions and here about the idea. If this is how you treat people you've met in real life, how would you treat an anonymous user who'd try to take the project to the 21st centuray? b) There is no community there now, even not three users. When I suggested I re-introduce my idea, u denided. Thus, don't change the fact that you deny, to this day, any real initiatives. This is why I support the request, as I explained above. c) I suggest removing your lies about obtaining sysop premissions behind community's back. I already had sysop rights, they were erroneously removed because of temporary inactivity . Mud throwing match is one thing, distorting the truth is another. Yonidebest 22:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Strong oppose - if you check the recent changes you will see that there are many new edits in the past few days. Give the project some time and it will rise again. עיתונאי עברי 07:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose per עיתונאי עברי. Matanya 08:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose, As a former Hewikinews editor (not under this account) I object, I reckon the project has strong potential as has been inter alia proved recently by עיתונאי עברי et al, and there is no immediate necessity to rush its' closure. Nowdays99 01:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose There has been some activity recently. --OosWesThoesBes 12:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose- some activity recently Deror avi 13:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've changed the format of this request to match the standard one. -- Dferg 10:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please warn the project that it's closure is being requested here or this proposal will be marked as void by the LangCom. Please see Closing projects policy. -- Dferg 10:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- The main argument here (well, besides that of user:yonidebest) is that the project is inactive. In this light, it might be prudent to take note that someone created two new short stories today. I asked him (or her) to comment here, and I hope whoever this contributor is - we're facing a revival for this project. Havelock 16:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.