Wikinews:Mediation alerts/DragonFire1024 and Neutralizer

DragonFire1024

First accusation of stalking by Neutralizer occured here on the talk page of Photo Essay: Cherry Blossoms Bloom in DC. User did not add reasoning for his acusations. Jason Safoutin 02:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User then attacked me, IMO, in my Nomination for Administrator at WN:A here. Jason Safoutin 02:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

At this point, IMO, it would seem the user likes to creat a "theatre of war" and according to WN:NOT thats not allowed. IMO, the user violates policy more times in one day than a vandal or a bot. Jason Safoutin 02:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

User also make a comment here on the talk page of U.S. jury decision moves Moussaoui closer to execution but then does not wait for a comment from the community, he just takes it upon himself to make the changes here and then proceeds to "swear" here. I thought we were supposed to use ediquette when collaborating, instead of attacking people. Yet another policy violation he gets away with. Jason Safoutin 02:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer on April 11, 2006 then makes a blantly visible and intentional attack on me on the ArbCom case against MrM here, saying Jason is the baby and mini-M; on almost every non-article edit he makes. Neutralizer 14:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Jason Safoutin 15:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer then removes other users votes from my request for Admin on WN:A. User has yet to reply on the edits as of the time of this posting. It is IMO that I am now not recieveing a fair vote on Admin becasue of his edits. Jason Safoutin 15:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Neutralizer removed an opposition comment on the ArbCom case against MrM here. Jason Safoutin 16:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Third parties

Neutralizer on break

User:Neutralizer has stated on his talk page that he will be away for a while. Mediation will obviously not take place during this time. irid:t 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Netralizer has returned. Mediation is possible at this time. Jason Safoutin 12:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer's vote deletion

Third user here. Format attempt. That seems only a mistake; the comment was made seemingly in reply to a comment that existed at a past version of the page, at 03:00, 11 April 2006; perhaps the user Neutralizer was excited by it and also did not recognize the page edited was a past version-you have done the same sort of action yourself. As the edit was only present from 14:24 until 14:29 when 5 minutes later was corrected by user Ironridis, it seems normal. Is that punished immediately here or punished by you immediately-should you not also punish yourself then for your minor mistakes if that is the case? Octavian 15:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect he's taken to viewing changes to his own talk page as diffs. If a user does that, they get used to hitting edit and assuming they are editing the current version, as talk page notices are always diffs to current versions. Nyarlathotep 16:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I find this unlikely... he's been here for 8 months. He hasn't figured out how reverting works yet? irid:t 17:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Knowing how to revert ain't exactly the same as knowing everything about not reverting, which is the whole point of my first comment. Nyarlathotep 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the edit he made followed the exact same process as reverting a page; using this logic, it's hard to see how he didn't make some sort of connection. irid:t 18:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

He has been lectured before about this. There is no doubt that this was intentional. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this a request for dispute resolution or someting else?

Mediation alert. Can Dragonfire explain what that imply. international 19:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a request for mediation, Jason is pointing out that he has a problem with Neutralizer, and Neutralizer seems to have a problem with him. He's asking for a third party to step in, analyse the situation, and issue written admonishments to "grow the hell up" as appropriate. Do not get involved in this, look for people who you trust to be impartial on this and suggest they look at the dispute.

For the record Wikinews is, in my opinion, fast degenerating into a discussion forum that has more in common with a heavily trolled Usenet group than with a site aimed at producing news. I warned in the past that some contributors would game policy until none were uninvolved and impartial, I conclude that this situation has arrived and will look at building cases for blocks if people do not moderate their behaviour and take to heart advice that has been offered from many sources on many occasions.

As an opinion from someone who is not impartial, both contributors have problems. Neutralizer - whether intentionally or not - games policy with extreme interpretations of what he is allowed, or what is forbidden when assessing the contributions of others. DragonFire1024 is too blunt in how he makes objections and does not make enough effort to persuade people to engage in a collaborative effort on articles he has problems with. In both cases it involves a requirement to adopt other stategies for approaching the project, and in both it involves giving up a lot of what makes up your own political POV. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I, too, am very biased in my opinion of Neutralizer, though I acknowledge and try to work past that bias. I have begun collecting instances of Neutralizer deleting the comments and votes of others in order to document potential misconduct. If this pattern persists, I will have reason to justify a disruption block. However, this is really, really not the way I want to do things.

Alas, even though I'm trying to help mediate disputes between users, the only one I can't mediate is one of the most critical to me. I have this persistent problem with Neutralizer which happens almost every time we edit the same page. Now that he's gone on a one-month wikibreak, it seems we're at even more of an impass. What to do... irid:t 21:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

International, the page is titled "Mediation Alert" because of two things:

1. It expresses an immediate problem which appears to be escalating and needs to be addressed before the problem becomes even worse and site disruption occurs.
2. It's modeled after WN:ALERT, which was becoming the depositing site for all personal disputes between users. This is, unfortunately, the "Admin Action Alert" page, implying that these personal disputes require a protected page or a blocked user. This is obviously untrue in 90% of cases.

It's not designed to make anyone an enemy, it's designed to be more visible and usable than WN:DISPUTE which is three pagefuls of proceedure. irid:t

I would be happy to be involved as a mediator if both parties wish. I consider both Neutralizer and Jason to be valuable contributors to this wiki - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 03:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)