Wikinews:Admin action alerts/Neutralizer

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Neutralizer Banned[edit]

I have banned Neutralizer from Wikinews for exhausting the community's patience: his block log shows evidence that he has been blocked and he has to be re-blocked because initial blocks don't send the message. His recent personal attack was the final straw that convinced me to ban him. If you wish to contest this ban, please at least alert me so I'm not surprised. —this is messedrocker (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at his block log and looking at the attack he made, I agree that my patience is exhausted with him. I support his indefinate ban. Jason Safoutin 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bawolff sees a horde of Neut socks coming to wikinews. I have no strong objections. He has done this to himself. There have been previous attempts to block him for a long time (thats about as strong a warning you can give) , I think he should have been able to figure out what he's been doing wrong by now. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neut is Neut, and has been around Wikinews in one form or another since its inception, and probably always will be regardless of any action taken by the community. Personally, I respect the contributor's opinions, even when I disagree. But more importantly, the faults if they exist, are not in the motives. -Edbrown05 03:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I generally respect Neutralizer's somewhat unique opinions. However, I think that a community must not allow abuse; this was definitely abuse. I support this indefinite ban. -- IlyaHaykinson 07:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the Record: I agree with the ban and now await a sockpuppet army. --+Deprifry+ 08:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, let me state that I do not see why (only) Neutralizer's (definitely immature) personal attack has been termed abuse, when we are confronted with abuse of a far more serious nature- misuse of sysop privileges. Amgine made the error of blocking a user (Neutralizer) with whom he (Amgine) was involved in a dispute. Such Administrative actions (whatever the suggested justification may be) constitute a breach of policy so serious that one really has to wonder why no action was taken against Amgine. Of course I am not suggesting that Amgine (a valuable, trusted contributor) did what he did with malicious intent but that does not mean that he should not be reprimanded. I, personally, respect Neutralizer's opinions and his efforts to make articles more neutral. A short block, for the personal attack (which was probably made in sheer anger and should not be taken overly seriously) would definitely be warranted, but a ban would be a loss to the neutrality of the project. PVJ(Talk) 08:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, wouldn't it be worse for the project if we (Administrators) have to spend our time combatting an "army" of (rather peeved) "Neutpuppets", instead of writing articles? PVJ(Talk) 11:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC) It has been confirmed that Neutralizer is not, at present, using sockpuppets to circumvent his block. PVJ(Talk) 15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neut has a habit of editing from Anon IP's. He does not need socks when he can edit from different IP's. Jason Safoutin 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 points;
  • This should be handled through Wikinews Arbcom if you have one or DR. This is a wiki and it would be dangerous precedent to ban a non-vandal.
  • 2 editors refer to his incrminating "block log" but provide no link to it. My search of the general block log shows little block activity against him other than a few dubious ones by Amgine; Please do not refer to "evidence" which is not available to the community.
  • there have been numerous erroneous allegations in the past week of Neutrallizer using sockpuppets and/or intending to do so; these allegations are not helpful.
  • My rough check of artcle edit contributions shows that Neutralizer has contributed more to articles in the past month than the total of all the editors who support a permanent ban.
  • I hope more of the cimmunity will come forward to insist that if this Neutralizer editor is to be banned that he be given the right of due process through your Arbcom/DR; to do otherwise indicates that there is not any real justification for a ban and is being done in an arbitrary and out of process manner which would be an extremely serious breech of wiki policy and the antithesis of wiki philosophy. 70.29.105.230 16:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DR as in Deletion Requests? What does that have to do with this? By the way, the block log is here: [1]. Anyways, this comment was against my wikibreak, I'll be going. Goodbye. —this is messedrocker (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DR ussually means disspute resolution on other wikis. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WN:LAWYER from a Toronto IP? - Amgine | m | en.WN 15:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IP 209.18.49.14 can be traced to Schencksville, in the U.S 65.78.87.120 is an RCN (if I recall correctly, the same ISP used by MyName) from Verndon in Virginia. None of the two, obviously, are from Canada. PVJ(Talk) 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to unban Neutralizer[edit]

That's right. Good ol' James is flip-flopping on an issue. However, we don't have to lock out a person who has made positive contributions if we can get him to clean up his act. Specifically, I'd want to let him back in on a strict parole, the terms of which I have to come up. I'd like y'all to help. Now, let me listen to this nice song. —this is messedrocker (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine by me. (I'm pretty indifferent to neut and his blocks at this point). Bawolff ☺☻ 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if I agree to unbanning him. He did this to himself and has refused to straighten up. He has been warned many many times, countless times, he has been blocked even more countless times. I do not see him improving. He has shown no signs to anyone in the community that he is willing to work with other users and has shown no signs of cooperating with anyone. If he is unbanned, it would have to be a very strict "parole" to which would have to be followed. Jason Safoutin 20:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has on ocassion coroporated with people, and generally behaved nicely, but they didn't last long (for example, after Wikinews:Dispute_resolution/Users_Neutralizer_and_Amgine he was good for a while). Bawolff ☺☻ 20:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the point. He will be good for a bit but he has always gone back to his ways. Jason Safoutin 20:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point to unblocking, unless it is to group potentially derogatory edits under a single username. I've had to remove neutralizer-isms from articles I've been archiving, and the "insurgents are innocent until their cause overturns commonsense and quashes the convictions" crap is gettting old. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed terms of parole: Neutralizer will be required to have a positive effect on the community. He is limited to one revert per day per article. Other than that, all the normal rules will be in effect, only after a warning he will get a six month ban for violating parole. May seem strict, but unlike an indefinite ban he will be allowed to edit. Any confirmed evasions of the ban will make his ban counter reset. If he is consistently violating parole, he can be indefinitely banned follow consensus. —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Addendum - Neutralizer will not be allowed to directly edit articles relating to the United States (aside from minor things like grammar), however he is free to make suggestions on the talk page. Please discuss this proposed parole. —this is messedrocker (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the terms[edit]

Here it is in a nice neat form:

Neutralizer shall:

  • Limit himself to one revert per day per article
  • Not edit disputed articles (however, he is welcome to make suggestions on the talk page)
  • Follow any other applicable rules

If he violates any single part of this parole, he gets

  1. First time offense: Warning
  2. Second time offense: Six month ban

If he evades his ban, then the six-month ban starts all over again.

  • I support this (would have gone with 3 month, but six fine). bawolff 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this, but given his history of not following rules and or warnings, I say six is generous. Jason Safoutin 01:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see very little point in this. He has been given dozens of chances to change his behaviour and has promised to do so numerous times. This has all however been pointless because a few week later he reverts back to his old behaviour, gets reblocked, makes new promises and we start all over again. Enough is enough.--Cspurrier 01:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely oppose this. More time has been spent dealing with Neutralizer one way or another than it would take to write a week worth of stories. Again, I think that I like the diversity that the user brings with his opinions. But there is a better way to bring them than with constant disruption, drama, and insults. Please keep this user permanently banned. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically stating that he should not edit "United States" articles seems a bit POV, ambigious. The condition should be changed to Shall not edit disputed articles (i.e any article that has been tagged as such). If he does agree to this proposal, I would suggest we record the terms so as to avoid any misinterpretation of them later. I feel, however, that arbitration would be the right avenue to explore in oder to get a lasting solution to this issue. PVJ(Talk) 06:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His issues arise when editing United States articles or articles having to do with the US. Jason Safoutin 19:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neut's got a problem with Amgine, not really with Wikinews. How would you like it if another's hosted website, JournoWiki, kept your name, Neutralizer, up as a listed contributor -> for a month's length of time <- after Neut directly asked Amgine to remove his name as being false name-inclusion on the list of contributors/participants on that site, and also opposed here on this wiki the linkage/existance/presence/mention of that site. For a month Amgine didn't respond to Neut's request. Neutralizer doesn't have a problem with Wikinews. I don't think Wikinews has a problem with the 'zingers' Neut throws at it. -Edbrown05 08:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a problem with other people having a problem with other users of wikinews. Also Neut does not have the right to disapear on wikinews either (meta:privacy policy##Removal_of_user_accounts Although you could make it less obvious you were here) Bawolff ☺☻ 09:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom is generally the kind of two-party not-exactly-everyone thing. In fact, it's like Dispute Resolution, only it's a binding decision. But anyways, do you support the parole? The current alternative is keeping Neutralizer's ban instated. —this is messedrocker (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to make an intreasting (arbcom) election (as everyone will proably have this on there mind when they vote) Maybe Us could be changed to Directly dealing with the United States Government (possibly as well as US). that seems a lot less ambiguous then happy influence. The difference between this and other times is this would be recorded, and after the 6 month block, it would still be in affect. (Note I'm not saying that this shouldn't go to arbcom, just arbcom should intervene at neut's request only, if the comunity can come up with its own solution. we should always use the least amount of beuracracy, and unnecessary representation as possible IMHO). user:Bawolff
I agree that a parole will be viable as a temporary solution. However, the dispute between Amgine and Neutralizer (regarding the Journowiki thing) seems to be unrelated to Wikinews, aside from the fact that the two (presumably) first met here. We could however look into Neutralizer's request (assuming it has not been granted) as to no links to Journowiki being added to Wikinews. I would certainly appreciate some input from Amgine on this aspect. As for the "US Government" thing, "disputed articles" will be more comprehensive (that would cover everything from Iran to Israel). As for ArbCom elections, haven't they already been conducted? PVJ(Talk) 09:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
half of the arbitrators terms are coming due (Wikinews:Arbitration_Committee/September_Elections_2006). Bawolff ☺☻ 09:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralizer Unbanned[edit]

The parole is now in effect. Neutralizer has been unbanned and informed of the requirements. —this is messedrocker (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we put the little orange thingy on his userpage(not talk)? (to remind him?)Bawolff ☺☻ 09:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. —this is messedrocker (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Sigh) Oh well. irid:t 04:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the thought and time taken with this and I will make it work this time for sure. I plan to cut back on my edits dramatically and be much more thoughtful in my edits as both steps should help me reduce the level of emotional intensity I often feel with the articles. Thanks again and I won't let down those of you who supported this "parole" approach. Neutralizer 14:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Admin_action_alerts/Neutralizer&oldid=309281"