Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Cspurrier and Neutralizer

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement of dispute by Neutralizer

My current dispute with Craig is simple. He does not assume good faith when it comes to me and he wants me to be permanently banned from Wikinews. I think my block log history shows I have been non-problematic for most of the past few months (with only Amgine feeling I needed a few short blocks) and I do not think Craig has noticed/recognized that improvement in my behaviour (even though,admittedly, much more future improvement is required and promised by me).
Since Craig is an Administrator, Bureaucrat and on our Arbcom he has a status that I find intimidating given his repeated attempts to influence other contributors to permanently ban me. He has actually had little direct interaction with me so it is difficult for me to know exactly what he would like me to do in order to regain his assumption of good faith. I hope that this mediation will provide a venue for him to express exactly what he wants to see from me in that regard. Neutralizer 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response by CSpurrier

I still believe Neutralizer should be permanently banned from Wikinews. Assume good faith does not mean we should ignore the facts. The facts are Neutralizer has used sock puppets, made numerous personal attacks, pov-pushed and occasional trolled. I could probably ignore the pov-pushing and the trolling, but the sock puppets and personal attacks are inexcusable. The use of sock puppets shows a blatant disregard for the will of the community and its rules. The personal attacks are a form of abuse that is harmful to the community and no user should be required to put up with. If Neutralizer could “shape up”, I would not have a problem with him continuing to edit. I do not however see any reason to believe that this time should be any different. He has made numerous promises to behave, and they have all been eventual partly or entirely ignored. He either lacks the will or the capability to do so. Though I would very much like for him to prove me wrong and become a polite, productive member of the community, however I very much doubt it will happen. Until the time Neutralizer is permanently banned from Wikinews, I will continue to be polite in my interactions with him and I hope he will do the same.--Cspurrier 23:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PVJ59

As an outside party in this dispute, I have the following observations to make:-

Certain users have been actively trying to have Neutralizer banned and have shown a lack of good faith in their dealings with him, whilst conveniently ignoring problems such as systemic bias that he (Neutralizer) is trying to overcome in his effort to revive Wikinews.
Amgine, intentionally or otherwise, abused his status as a sysop to block Neutralizer while involved in a dispute with the latter, thereby goading Neutralizer into claiming (in overly harsh language) that Amgine was misusing his privileges to push his own POV.
Craig Spurrier holds almost all the positions of responsibility granted to users (Administrator, Bureaucrat, Checkuser, Arbitrator) and hence his comments against Neutralizer would, understandably, seem intimidating. There is, though, no evidence to show that CSpurrier has misused any of the privileges granted to him. As for CSpurrier "influencing" other editors, that cannot, at this time, be satisfactorily established. It is clear, however, that for one user alone to have so much power is not in the best interests of the project. The solution to that problem would be to make more Bureaucrats, Checkusers, preferably from Asia/Africa/any other region that, due to systemic bias, is not well represented in these positions. PVJ(Talk) 12:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Brian McNeil

I've had my run-ins with Neutralizer, and he - in my opinion - represents a fairly reactionary fringe, his idea of NPOV seems significantly different from mine. There is a tendency to include material that is, when charitably described, influenced by a variety of conspiracy theories. I have had to remove late edits from a number of articles for archiving where the contribution was a poorly worded emphasis of "innocent until proven guilty" that destroyed the flow of the article by assuming the reader was a redneck ready to string up "tham thar terrorists". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the concept of Innocent until proven guilty applies to gun-toting drug-dealers, I think it should also apply to "terrorists". Also, your concept of NPOV (as you call it) seems to be rather unorthodox. PVJ(Talk)

14:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do I need to rely on innocent until proven guilty, the user has over 50 blocks for violation of policies and guidelines. Innocent is a strange word to emphasize here. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also as a FYI, I'm talking about removing crap like "The charges are merely allegations and not proven against those detained" which has been tacked onto the end of several articles 2-3 days after they're published. That is a point I take for granted when I read news of someone's arrest, explicitly stating it is expressing a point of view that you either consider the arrests unfair or the charges unfounded. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are the one who embraces USAGOV promoted conspiracy theories about "terrorists" and "islamofascists" who were factually created by USAGOV and the Saudis and continue to be financed by Afghan opium production. Go get a history book and stop misrepresenting historical fact as being conspiracy theories and weaselly calling me a conspiracy theorist in the process. Just stop the name calling and personal attacks. My edits are not "crap" nor is material I include "influenced by conspiracy theories". Your accusations are false and I demand you apologize for them. Neutralizer 15:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take your unmedicated delusions and your personality defects, and consult a mental health professional. My "accusations" are considered opinions based on substantial evidence and the conclusion I come to is that you are naught but a troll who should have permanently been blocked a long time ago. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MessedRocker asked me to apologize to Brian or be blocked for 6 months but I don't know why there is no apology from him to me? Anyway, I'm sorry Brian. Neutralizer 19:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by: DragonFire1024

My statement is on the discussion page of this "dispute" but I feel the need to place it here...

Neutralizer, you were blocked for POV pushing. You were banned for a personal attack to every editor and user on this Wiki. Your parole is based on cerain requirements that you have agreed to follow. Whether he or anyone else wants you banned is not a violation of policy, or good faith. He wants you blocked because his patience has been exhausted with you. Do you intend to bring IlyaHaykinson or Messedrocker here too? I see no "dispute" here other than you seem to be upset that he does not want you around anymore.

He has not influenced me at all. Nor has anyone else. I support your parole because I do not want to be accused of "not giving you a chance." Where is this evidence that you say he is influencing users? All I see is a statement with nothing to back it up. In order for him to "assume good faith" regarding you, show him good faith and show the community good faith.

This resolution, until such evidence of "manipulation" comes forward is a diversion from the project and IMO this is not "useful edits" as you, neutralizer agreed to do as a condition of parole. Jason Safoutin 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews' audience always goes into the toilet when I'm not around

My last edits were Sep.4th.

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=wikinews.org

I wish the pro-anglo-american pov gang would get off their ass and write something worth reading.

Neutralizer 10:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pchart.jpg

Correlation between global temperature and the numbers of pirates

The graph to my right clearly and indisputably shows that global warming is caused by the falling numbers of pirates worldwide. Neutralizer, you do care about the environment, right? Help the world and become a pirate. --+Deprifry+ 22:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you miss the point...EVERY time he is blocked or goes away for awhile the numbers go down; anyone who really cares about the project should be begging him to stay involved. 67.71.122.65 02:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every time Pirates go down, global temperature increases (For as long as we have records of temp and pirates). Maybe people are just drawn to the amount of drama he creates. (People like fighting and flamewars). user:Bawolff. 02:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked (assuming no new developments I'm unaware of) Neutralizer waas invited to stay under MessedRokers probation plan. Thats more then fair in his favour in my humble opinion. user:Bawolff

I assume you all know the chart is bogus as no one knows how many pirates there are so Deprify must be saying all charts are bogus. I know people who believe all education is bogus and also a few who believed that Saddam had wmds so I suppose the fact some people believe all charts are bogus just falls into the category of "to each his own". Neutralizer 16:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the chart is not bogus because "no one knows how many pirates there are". The interpretation is bogus because it is a typical example of the correlation implies causation fallacy. Pretty much like your egotistical interpretation of Alexa statistics actually. That you didn't understand it pretty much proves my point. --+Deprifry+ 18:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, your "point" is vacated at origin through use of a bogus chart. I don't wish to "understand" nonsense. It is nonsense to use a bogus chart to disprove a causation effect. A non-bogus chart could serve to show causation which is why you resort to a bogus chart. I think the Alexa chart is non-bogus. Your use of a bogus chart to support non-causation theory only serves to prove by opposition that a non-bogus chart can show causation. The knowing use of a bogus chart to prove or disprove anything is quite a good example of BushSpeak,double speak and pseudointellectual faulty logic which seems to have washed over our younger generation and culture. Do you really imagine one could disprove gravity by burying an apple and claiming that since it dropped no further than where buried that means gravity is a myth? Did you know that today in Florida less than 50% of the black boys finish high school? Did you know that the illiteracy rate in the USA was 4% in 1952 and is 18% today? Did you know that all IBM employees were required to have a small sign on their desks which said "THINK" for decades but now only the top executive tier have the signs?Is there a connection between that stuff and the use of a bogus chart to make a bogus point? I think so but you may not. Here is a now deleted section of pedia's Skull and Bones section on education. I think it's interesting, you may not; BUT I will never understand how it could be less relevant than a bogus chart being used to attempt to disprove anything at all.

'Bones and U.S. Education

Bones Importing the Prussian Social Control Model

The connections that Bonesman George Miller had with high finance and high politics through Bonesman William Walter Phelps (S&B, 1860) helped 'steer' U.S. Education to take root in a German-Prussian vein as well. For the purposes of this article, "in a Prussian vein" means according to the principles founded in the requirements of the Prussian royalist state. In 1816, after the total defeat in the Napoleonic Wars, Prussian legislation went very right wing, basing its premises on 'Right-Hegelian' Fichte. The desire to make education compulsory for all was hardly for the interests of educating people or enriching their lives. It was for the interests of creating a perfectly hierarchical and centrally manipulatable society of the future with a small coterie of elites actually doing the thinking for the whole society, and the others blindly following orders, having been crippled by the eduational frameworks to be unable to know anything different.

In the Prussian strategy, the whole population is categorized into three "educational castes" to formulate future easier elite control of the population.

1. those who will be policy makers, who are taught to think (0.5%),

2. those who will be engineers, lawyers, doctors--who are taught to partially think, only for accreditation in specialized topics (5.5%), and

3. the children of the masses, who are to be taught how to follow orders (94%).'

[1]"In other words "compulsory education" may have had from the start a social design purpose for a hidden curriculum: aiming to maintain an ever more difficult to achieve form of elite managerial dominance--as calls for democracy, widened political participation, and the removal of the political perks of aristocratically inherited wealth were expanding throughout European society and the United States. The Prussian educational system in Germany as well as the United States was idealized as a strategic tool to demote political and intellectual equality and to reformulate an aristocratic society in novel formal institutions. It could even be called a "de-educational" model, because it promotes a society that is endemically uneducated and trained mostly to follow someone else's centralized instructions thoughtlessly." Neutralizer 19:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see Neutralizer that your attitude, editing and way of thinking on Wikinews has not changed since your break. I can see you have no interest in changing nor do you have any interest in following the conditions of your "parole." This is supposed to be a dispute resolution page, not a page for you to express your views on the project or opinions of other users. If you have a problem state it. Otherwise take the conspiracy stuff to your user page or off Wikinews. Jason Safoutin 22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, not that since you have been back, you have not made any positive contributions as to articles or writing any. Not such a good note to start off on. Jason Safoutin 22:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason, I'm just trying to follow the flow of things like the bogus chart and Brian's personal appraisal of the value of other people's edits; and there are no worthwhile news stories around right now that I can find. I did notice over the past month that you have been contributing a lot and that's great. Neutralizer 01:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the compliment. But you have been gone for a month and come back with this attitude and unuseful contributions by stirring up a quiet and calm community. Peaceful to say the least. I do not pay attention to charts. Bogus or not. I pay attention to the site, the users, and everything that goes on here as best as I can. Brian has in no way judged the value of my edits. If he did I don't care. That what a Wiki is. Collaborating editing with users everywhere about anything. On the point of "no worthwhile articles..." write one for a change. Jason Safoutin 21:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.