Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/Archive/9

November 18

Let's move on, 'cos it's time to groove on...

With reference to the above... Isn't it time we all just had a group hug and moved on?

Rcameronw 15:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher! Rcameronw's touching me! --Wolfrider 15:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutralizer's punishment

I want constructive criticism for the amount of punishment that is to be given to User:Neutralizer. I understand that above, many opposed the six month blocks. However, consistent violation of policy warrants a block. And that is non-negotiable. So therefore, I am taking suggestions and hopefully wish to obtain a consensus on a community-approved punishment. This is not up for discussion, Neutralizer will be punished. Now, please start the suggestions below. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I believe Neutralizer has been punished for every policy guideline that he has broken. Punishing him again, with the exception that they’re being treated collectively, is completely unfair. I’d like you to keep in mind MrM, that this matter is up for discussion if the community wants it to be, regardless of whether that pleases you or not. I think it would be a good idea if you take a less combative and less totalitarian approach to Wikinews because I must respectfully remind you, that your position as administrator is also up for community discussion. --Wolfrider 02:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will not. This community is rattling to pieces because the administrators as a whole have done nothing but sit around and not take action. I'm sick of ignoring issues here. Violations of policy aren't negotiable - and make sure you realize that by me being "totalitarian" is a method of showing that there is regulation here on Wikinews. I'm tired of listening to excuses of those who have violated policy - I want to see they can put it behind them and become valuable contributors. The only way I see that is excommunicating them for a set amount of time for a roadmap to be made on how the user can fit in the community better and contribute to this site more. Neutralizer will be blocked - his punishment will be served. But he isn't the only one; many of us need to be reprimanded for our behavior (yes, including me). I will not let others talk their way out of issues like this. The time has come - no more ignoring it. If I sound harsh, then so be it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out, MrM, that currently Amgine and Neut are taking steps toward mediation on their own, and there is no need to further push for a punishment. There is community consensus that a ban on Neutralizer is not the answer and that mediation is a much better solution. Other users have gone to great lengths to solve this dispute without a block and taking action against Neutralizer is obstructing the process that we have decided, as a community, to engage in. --Wolfrider 02:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then someone in this community is going to have to prove to me where it is written that the community has the choice to override items of policy in select cases, because as far as I'm concerned - users here would not treat anyone else who performed the same violations the same way they are treating Neutralizer. The policy is meant for EVERYONE to abide to. If the community wishes to make amendments to the policy, they can do so - but they cannot give "get out of policy" free cards out. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest, that given the fact that Wikinews is a community that any and all policies are open to debate at anytime when the vast majority of the community wishes it. I also must reiterate that the issues you are proposing to ban Neutralizer for have already been dealt with in various ways by the site's admins. What you are saying is that admins should have the right to ban a user multiple times for the same incident. I would like to hear your position on this. --Wolfrider 02:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not spending hours discussing everything I post here. So I'm going to be brief but concise. Neutralizer, AMONG WITH OTHERS, have violated the policies of this website in subsequent edits to the wiki AFTER "serving" time through a block. Users CAN and WILL be blocked for edits they make if they are made against the policies of this site. You CAN be blocked for the same TYPE of edit numerous times - you CANNOT be blocked for the SAME "DIFF" EDIT numerous times (of course, this is not applying to the ArbCom or whatever it is...). --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. So why don't you tell us what specific violations you are referring to so that we can take a look. At the same time, why don't you set up a similar section for each of the "others" you are referring to so that people don't get the impression that you have a personal agenda. --vonbergm 03:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, you didn't bother to read Amgine's list at all. So I will refuse to reply to your comments, and will let you continue on to think that I have a poltical agenda to push here. I honestly don't see how you can pull that out of anywhere concerning relevent items in this discussion, but I'm always a fan of off the trail rides... just a warning, fasten your seatbelt. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken Amgine's list quite seriously and have suggested possible punishments for Neutralizer based on that. The problem was however, that I took the list too seriously and did not realize that Amgine listed violations that Neutralizer was already punished for (and I retracted some of my suggestions). You seem to also agree that many of the violations on Amgine's list should not be considered (after all you sugested above that we should talk about 'subsequent' violations). Amgine's list is not very useful for that, especially as I might not be aware which of these allegations might be really relevant (as happend before and I needed to retract my suggestions).

So please give some more specific violations, or distill Amgine's list down to the relevant cases. And your argument that because I supposingly have not read Amgine's list you cannot start a section like this for other violators seems a little silly. --vonbergm 03:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will construct a list for you tomorrow. But only for justification of the block, as you have requested as such. Now, as I said before - the issue is not up for debate. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't accept this idea that we start from the premise: "Neutralizer must be punished, now what should that punishment be?" - that's a pretence of consultation unless everyone already agrees with your premise (I think most of us disagree with it, hence us getting into this discussion in the first place). Neutralizer hasn't done anything deserving of punishment, ergo no punishment required.
I fail to see how the interests of this community are served by this relentless (ie. it's been going on for weeks) obsession with "punishing" one particular editor. If there's a problem, we should try and solve it. If there's not a problem, why start inventing one? Wouldn't your time be better used in writing and editing Wikinews stories rather than pursuing a personal vendetta?
Neut's already been punished many times over. He's been slapped with far more and far longer bans than any other user I know of, and the action taken against him has been vastly disproportionate even to the (frankly quite minor) indiscretions he's been accused of, let alone the much smaller subset of those perceived indiscretions that actually had any basis in fact. Any probation system in the world would let him off on "time served" by now. So really, the thing to do would be go back in time and undo some of the punishment that's been meted out to Neut. But seeing as that's not possible, how about we just call it evens?

Rcameronw 15:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No - it is not "even". Policies are here to maintain order, not to be ignored. The community does not have a say on when and when not policies are imposed on what members - all members and situations are treated equally. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MrM, you are making it quite difficult to solve the issue and return Wikinews back to normal. I respect that you feel you must "put your foot down" but most of the people involved in this discussion do not want Neutralizer banned. He is actively going through a process to resolve the dispute and after it is finished that should be the end of it. I feel as though you have some vested interest in blocking Neut simply because you don't want to feel like you've lost. We've read the "dossier" against Neutralizer and are absolutely not swayed by it. The community has every right to debate policy and when you are the lone voice you, unfortunately, have no right to supersede what the community decides. You are a valuable contributer to the project MrM, and I caution that it will be much easier to respect those contributions if you allowed the community to deal with this in the way we feel is most appropriate. I also suggest you re-examine Neut's offer for mediation, as it would be good for both you and the community as a whole. Your refusal truly reflects badly on you. --Wolfrider 01:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I quite honestly could careless what other users want and what the order used to be on this site. I am not asking you if he should be blocked - he should be. And that's not the community's place to decide - it is the administrators, who have reviewed the policies, to decide that. And as an administrator, the following edits were made against Wikinews policy: [1] [2][3][4] [5][6]. During the whole time that people were saying "Assume good faith" and "We should educate, not punish...", those same people never once either offered to educate Neutralizer nor did they provide evidence of why others should assume good faith on the questioned edit(s). There are serious gaps in communication and policy here - I encourage all of you, as good members, to review ALL policies of this site, as well as proper etiquette. Do not just assume that bad things will go away; what are we teaching the community if users who cannot control themselves are not dealt with properly? --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 02:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MM, I'd like to invite you to retract your assertion: "I quite honestly could careless what other users want and what the order used to be on this site. I am not asking you if he should be blocked - he should be. And that's not the community's place to decide - it is the administrators". I feel that this is inappropriate and disrespectful to the community, and a mischaracterisation of the role of administrators. Rcameronw 19:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that rules should be applied consistently and fairly. Thus, if you can convince the community that a clear offence has occurred under the rules, which has not already been punished through the battery of bans N has already had, and for which some further "punishment" would be appropriate and constructive, then and only then would it be necessary to talk about what, if anything, such a punishment should consist of. But you've not proved it, you've asserted it - there's a difference. All credit to whoever produced that multi-claused mega-wiki-indictment against Neutralizer - they obviously put a lot of time and effort into it. But as a number of people have commented, long and detailed though this "dossier" is, it falls quite a long way short of actually proving anything. 101 bad, spurious arguments are no substitute for one good one. Rcameronw 23:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to the Community

I want to apologize for my part in this episode. I will henceforth really work at being less combative and more reserved in my choice of words. I also want to thank everyone who gave some time and attention to the matter. I will also embrace and participate constructively in whatever mediation/arbitration process the community chooses to employ. So, in summary, apologies and thanks to you all. Neutralizer 15:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather have you show yourself as a civil member of this community then hearing apologies time and time again. Proof is always better than excuses. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People often do things in the heat of the momment they often regret later. Apoligies are a good place to start and should be encouraged (IMHO). I think its great that Neutrializer (sp?) realized what his actions were (that were negative) and show's remorse for them. Apoligizing is really hard sometimes, but often is the first step to fixing a problem. Bawolff ☺☻

00:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing Wikinews:Mediation

I've figured that there has been some heated disputes lately, so I cooked up a solution for last-resort argument resolution that I think more people will like than my ArbCom idea: Wikinews:Mediation. Read more about it on that page, and tell the people what you think. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great concept. It highlights the mediation process but is also able to reach enforceable decisions, if necessary. I think this could work. Nicely done, thanks. --Deprifry|+T+ 15:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This does look like a great idea. I am a bit concerned about the "majority decision" provision -- we should be concerned about minority protection. --Chiacomo (talk) 16:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We could add that decisions can't violate existing policy and such. --Deprifry|+T+ 16:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Added. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea and great work. Thanks for doing that! 80.43.5.75 16:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This looks more like it, I was unhappy with ArbCom going straight to worst-case methods of dealing with issues. Brianmc 16:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. :-) --Wolfrider 16:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mediation system in place

Just for community information; There is a wikinews mediation system in place. It's called "dispute resoultion" and is on the site contents page. the history http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Dispute_resolution&action=history shows Amgine and Dan100 have each used the mediation process successfully (Amgine twice and Dan100 once) http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Dispute_resolution&oldid=58975 . However, perhaps we wish to set up a better system? Neutralizer 14:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence! I'm currently working on Wikinews:Mediation, which is supposed to be an extreme inverse of what the Arbitration Committee was. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee assuming blocking/unblocking authority

This is the biggest current issue in my opinion. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Log/block

An unelected committee engaging in unblocking without any discussion at all within the community about whether the committee should have this authority. Neutralizer 14:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are 100% right an unelected committee can not have this authority. However on a committee where all of it’s members are admins any admin may chose to exercise his personal authority as an admin to unblock. Unless a committee gets community support needed to have this sort of authority, all action are going to be actions of a member made with the agreement of its member. --Cspurrier 14:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah anyways, the Arbitration Committee is no more. Apparently, it left a sour taste in people's mouths, and so it shouldn't exist if something that's supposed to make peace isn't making peace. There will be a Mediation page for argument last-resorts, though. Anyways, regarding the unbanning, I did so so that the people involved can speak. Who's in favor of a week-long ban for Rawker? —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Community Discussion on Dealing with Neutralizer

I would like to propose to have a community discussion on Amgine's List and its implications. Although this might not have any bearing on the ban imposed on Neutralizer, I believe that it is important that this issue is discussed out in the open by the contributers (and readers) of WikiNews. If nothing else, at least this will have some cathartic effect for the community.

It was said that "Violations of the policy are non-negotiable". As nice as this sounds, the issue is not as black and white as some try to make it look. We know that almost every one that contributes regularly has violated policy. At least not giving summaries of edits seems quite common, and many other violations listed by Amgine can readily be found in other people's editing. The issue is not that policies have been violated, but if and to what extend they have been violated.

Stripping Amgine's list of the superfluous fluff, I see three violations that warrant looking into (maybe others see more [or fewer]) ordered in seriousness (in my opinion)

1) Neutralizer created JohnnyK as a sockpuppet

2) Neutralizer attacked other contributers on a personal basis

3) Neutralizer pushes his POV into articles (and clutters the discussion pages with it)

I would like to start the discussion by giving my opinion on these issues.

1): I find this a serious problem. One should not need nor use a sockpuppet to give one's opinion higher value. Either the arguments one has are good enough to convince the community, or not. Creating sockpuppets shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of Concensus that underlies WikiNews. Of course, this concept of Consensus is the best (and only) real defense against sockpuppets and dramatically reduce their impact. Creating sockpuppets can be sanctioned with a ban, which seems appropriate in this case. For the duration of the ban, I believe that a week (maybe two) is quite appropriate, as this is to my understanding a first-time offence when it comes to sockpuppeting but not the first offence in Neutralizers recent history. Of course this discussion assumes the sockpuppet allegation as a fact. I am willing to believe this, but the evidence needs to be publicly accessible (given Amgine's history of sockpuppet allegations). Late update: I was not aware that this has already been dealt with by banning Neutralizer for a month. I agree with Deprifry that therefore this point has therefore no (or little) bearing on the current discussion.

2) This is a problem that has some history and has been dealt with before by banning Neutralizer temporarily. Since then Neutralizer has been advised by some people (including myself) to refrain from such anti-productive behaviour. It seems that the majority of Amgine's claims w.r.t. this rest on this previous issue. The new cases seem much more toned downed to me. I admit that I have not spent the time shuffeling through Amgine's list to distill the relevant cases, so I cannot comment on appropriate repercussions.

3) Neutralizer has been liberal in the use or removal of POV flags. Maybe too liberal, and it would be good for him to learn to compromise and find common ground. (I may also need to get better at this, but that is irrelevant here.) I suggest a self-imposed ban by Neutralizer to not touch NOPV flags for 2 weeks and limit discussions regarding NPOV issues to 3 posts per article. This may be a good way to reinforce constructive editing behaviour. Having said this, there are of course also other people that are quite "trigger-happy" (in their function as "editors") when it comes to NPOV flags and may want to consider a similar therapy.

In total I suggest a week's or two ban with another week or two of self-imposed restrictive NPOV editing. Curious what other people think. --vonbergm 21:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To your points:

1. While it certainly gives an inside into Neutralizer's character he has already been banned for a full month for this by NGerda back in August. So punishing him again for this would be Double Jeopardy.

2. Frankly, "attacks on personal basis" is an understatement. He accused MrM and Craig of being agents of the US government paid to infiltrate Wikinews. That's a preposterous and quite possibly libelous allegation that clearly needs to be retracted. --Deprifry|+T+ 22:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: It would be quite funny to see you push this through a court, because I doubt that they would uphold that comparing someone to an agent of law was a slur of character. Hahaha. -- Simeon 08:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional aside: If it were true though, couldn't N be held liable for "leaking the identity of a government agent"? I seem to recall a similar case in the US recently... Anyhow, more seriously, I think most of us agree that N's "government agent" claim was absurd and unhelpful, but it also seems absurd to me that it's been used again and again as a stick to beat him with. Without wanting to sound crass about it, it's not exactly the worst slur you can throw at a person and I humbly suggest that most of us here have thrown, and received, far worse insults than that one in our time (certainly I have). It was quite a while ago now, N did get a 72-hour ban as a result of making it, and I've not seen any similar claims from him since - in fact I've seen a marked change in his behaviour. I'm sorry if the recipient of the slur still feels upset by it but (though I don't have time to track through all the machinations right now) I'm pretty sure I did see a retraction/apology somewhere along the way. The recipient of the slur in question is laudably open on his talk page about the admirable personal beliefs to which he professes adherence. My understanding of that particular set of beliefs is that forgiveness and "turning the other cheek" play quite a central part.

Rcameronw 09:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC) [reply]

(Deprifry continues...)

3. This needs to be addressed in the long term. Just banning him for a specific time is not gonna help the community. We need to make it clear to him and to us what's acceptable and appropiate behaviour and what's not. I know, that's not going to be an easy way but I think it is possible. --Deprifry|+T+ 22:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My responses (to Deprifry):

1. We do not have a "double jeapordy" law here. If users repeat a violation, then it will be dealt with as per the blocking policy. Not all of the examples provided occurred in August.

2. I find it as a personal attack, as I have repeatedly asked him to stop calling me a "Government agent" or associated with the government in any way - because it is a false claim. Furthermore, I find these as personal attacks because he implies that I am employed to do nothing but manipulate Wikinews for the government. You may not see it as a personal attack, but I do. Would you really want someone to keep claiming that you are something you aren't and trying to defame you while in the process? That's a personal attack in my book.

Comment Sorry to interupt but wanted to mention these previous retractions that MrM may have not seen;http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler#Plot_to_Permanently_Ban_Me.3F ""I made a big mistake by mentioning the taboo term "government agent". I will retract that right now since I have no proof." Neutralizer 15:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)and also http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals&oldid=153499#Some_of_us_ARE_being_paid_.3F"I should take the opportunity to say that I could be wrong about my suspicions; I did lead off by saying "in my opinion" and that's all it is...my opinion..not a fact;" Neutralizer 18:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

3. I think that the most proper way to do this is already handled with the policies and style guides already enacted on the website.

--MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was only refering to the sock puppet thing, which occured in August.

2. Im sorry you missunderstood that. I meant with "understatement" that it was worse than a personal attack, namely libelous = defamation.

3. From the look of this page there seems to be some serious disagreements about interpretating the policy. I think it is in the best interest of the community that this situation will be resolved in a way most people can agree on. Not only for the sake of Neutralizer but for future cases aswell. --Deprifry|+T+ 22:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say, that I see no positive benifit from this ban. Yes Neutrilizer has done some bad things( I would say the sockpuppet, and the whole agent thing, would constitute as extremly bad), and he has also done some good things. But a near permanent ban, isn't going to do anything to help these problems. Especially considering he said he wanted mediation, and was prepared to take a wiki-break to try and stop the bad feelings between him and others. Isn't getting everyone to get along and agree, beter then punishing people?

Quote

I have decided to take a break from story edits in light of the apparent anger Amgine and MrMiscellanious feel toward my contributions. Hopefully, such a break will allow any hard feelings on their part to lessen. I will continue adding to the "running list" record here on my talk page (if warranted) if noone has any objections. Neutralizer 21:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

From his talk page. (have to go thru history to get to it. [7] ). Nice quote box courtasy of Mr.M — thank-you for the quote template.

Bawolff ☺☻ 23:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Length of blocks

No way should anyone ever be blocked for 6 months. Ever. Anyone. Not even known, proven, identified vandal-bots. Anything could happen in six months, including someone else get the IP. Anyone who actually respects a 6 month block should by definition get some kind of medal, because it shows extreme obedience above and beyond the call of duty. In fact, take that back, they should get some kind of bell so that people know they are brain dead. Could a six-month block have any purpose other than to cause someone to break the six month block? Then perhaps we could block them permanently! Wow ... never thought of that! -- Simeon 09:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews: Discuss: appropriate length of blocks:

< your text here >

Agreed. I think what we've seen here has been a pretty interesting model of how a free and open community can descend "by a thousand cuts" into something far short of it. I think the thing that sealed it for me was reading the phrase "by order of the Arbitration Committee", used without any apparent hint of irony. Since when did we start giving each other "orders"?!

When we suggested that Arbitration would help out here, what we meant was that we should get someone external and independent, not create a "Committee" consisting of exactly the same people who've been clashing horns with Neutralizer for the last few weeks to do the Abitration for us, who then go around giving and executing "orders". If these guys are going to be on the "Committee of Public Safety" or the "State Peace and Development Council" or whatever it's called, then I think the rest of us should be as well.

If this was happening in real life, it would be scary. As things stand, it's just a bit mad.

Rcameronw 14:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum - Is anyone else starting to feel like they're the unwitting participant of some strange psychology experiment / fiendishly clever and elaborate practical joke? Rcameronw 14:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral block

Administrators should not take it into their heads to block people. Blocking is a last resort. I have just blocked three administrators who implemented the block against Neutralizer (see below). I would prefer to strip their admin privs, but don't think I could do that effectively. Perhaps Wikipedia can now discuss this issue sanely, in the absence of the extra-coercive admins. I doubt this block will last unless it is reinforced by other users. I suggest that someone take appropriate action who agrees that these people have gone too far and that Wikinews needs the breathing space to figure out how better to handle these types of issues.

If it's helpful to block Neutralizer, then this is *no different*.

Over and out, I haven't been around much, but what I see is distasteful. Please help make this a better and more friendly place, please help people to write their news and get it up in a timely fashion, even if it means making some compromises on how much this site looks like a 'regular site'. And please refrain from pushing the big red button whenever you can.

Discuss below here what can be done, and who can be our admins, and how wikinews can run with less beauracracy and therefore less trigger-happy adminning.

-- Simeon 08:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]