Wikinews talk:Editors/Neutralizer

• I do support this motion. The user has, in repeated times past, been asked by many users to revise his method of editing Wikinews. Since he refuses to do this, and continues to violate the NPOV policy, harrass users and raise hell on this wiki, I cannot in good faith support his access of editing this wiki in the methods he has chosen to. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• I support this. Someone who claims to have a "nemesis" is openly admitting they will approach the project in an adversarial manner. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a very superficial judgement on which to base a very significant action. -- Simeon 03:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

This was as short a comment as I felt I could make considering the text of the page. Please refer to my comments later on this page. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• My long time nemesis bringing this forward pollutes the integrity of this process; as I am sure he is well aware. Neutralizer 22:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Object to this procedure on principle, see talk.--Eloquence 23:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to stress that my vote here does not imply that I am in favor of such proposal, however in dire times, I would like to use its advantages. Just to, you know, add to the confusion :). --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Both. Object on principal, and on the specifics, which I will endeavour to research and comment on as I find them, in what time I can spare. Really this originates in a personality conflict and this is a chunk of time that a lot of people could better spend doing something productive. Amgine, I wish you could find a way to get over yourself on this. Do you think Neutralizer baits you?

Why is it always Amgine or MrM who finds issue with Neutralizer's behaviour lately? I agree with Neutralizer that there is a pattern here, a strong pattern. Have a look through the history from yesterday and find my repairs that I made to the reference desk -- straying somewhat from the topic, but you are central to a team of like-minded people who choose to police this wiki and regularly enforce a particular political agenda, whether you are aware of it or not, and whether it is intentional or not.

A wiki is a place for people to balance each others views wherever a single person cannot produce a balanced contribution on their own. So the more bias you introduce, the more Neutralizer and others, myself included, will resort to 'biased' contributions, simply in order to attempt to balance the bias your team has so-adequately entrenched. You must at least be aware of this process, and yet you continually cry foul, as if there is only one side to the equation.

That is what I find unacceptable, more than any bias in Neutralizer's contributions, at least he admits to you the right to express your opinion. -- Simeon 03:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this originates in a personality conflict, but I find it unlikely since my personal political views are more in line with Neutralizer's than with MrMiscellanious's. I am certainly sensitized to Neutralizer's actions as I have been the target of attacks from him on multiple websites and have had my personal webpages vandalized by him, but I don't take much which happens online very personally; I assume it is the results of a lack of personal responsibility and high emotions.

A wiki is not a place to balance each other; it is a place to build a community with common goals. The assumed view that one is required to "balance" another creates a false dichotomy and requires a status of conflict. This wiki and this community were formed with several specific tenets which you should recall: to report what is factually sourced and verifiable in accordance with a neutral point of view policy, to develop a community with whom to collaborate in doing so. There is no requirement there for balance, but there are requirements for verifiability and the NPOV, and a requirement to work collaboratively.

It is my opinion User:Neutralizer is either not capable or not willing to work collaboratively within the community to produce verifiable news articles which follow npov. This opinion has been informed by an extensive investigation of three months worth of his edits, and five months of active involvement with him. I do not believe you have given the same amount of consideration to developing your opinion that he is capable of doing any of these things. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 04:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to reply to your comments extensively, I would rather see more input from others than a discussion between you and me ... but I have formed a similar opinion of yourself and some others over a similar amount of time, Amgine. What should I do? Block you repeatedly? Repeatedly ask the community to vote for your excision? I don't think so. If you can't accept that in a public forum there are people who repeatedly, vehemently express strong views, then it is you who has the problem with wikinews, not Neutralizer.

I'm sorry that I don't have time to "investigate this matter" to the same depth as you. But I question if this one user is so troublesome, why is it always the same people who complain about his "behaviour"?

Given that, like most of the "community" that you are inviting to disconnect from Neutralizer, I don't have time to read the history page of every page on the site, I personally have always found Neutralizer to be polite towards me.

If I am correct that it is only a few users who have a problem with Neutralizer, then I ask those users to please try to find ways to resolve your differences with that user yourselves, because I don't think this is a community issue, and I don't think our community should be excising elements it can't gracefully integrate. That seems to be the exact opposite of everything that wikimedia is intended for. -- Simeon 06:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as a side remark, I thought there was agreement a while ago that administrators block users that they are invoved in an active conflict with violate admin policy. That rule would make sense to me, but I guess I got that wrong. --vonbergm 20:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as a side reply, I want to stress that any violation of policy should not, and does not, require for an admin to be in a dispute with another user. In this case, there was a clear-cut violation of the policy. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Amgine, I have been looking at Neutralizer's edit history as you requested. I can't for the life of me see any recent edits by him that might be called disruptive, definitely not 'disruptive to the site' or 'disruptive to the community'. Please can you point out the edit or group of edits which prompted you to [him]?

02:13, 16 January 2006 Amgine blocked "User:Neutralizer" with an expiry time of 1 week (Disruption of site, repeated tagging/untagging without justification/consensus, ongoing refusal to work collaboratively)

-- Simeon 07:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I will be happy to do so tomorrow. I do not have enough time remaining this evening, but will build a list of edits (and context) for you when I get online in the morning. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 07:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Short list to hold off on until Amgine is up for the day:

• POV title change; article did not reflect any "pressure", nor even spoke of any.
• Continuation of the "running list", although discussions with other users resulted in the consensus (along with Neutralizer) to discontinue the list
• Venezuela will buy Spanish planes with European technology -> Violation of WN:NOT, in that: "Wikinews articles are not works in progress. Developing articles are marked with the {{develop}} template. Once written and published they are historical documents; they should not continue to be updated or changed. Especially, they should not be altered to an angle or POV not reflective of the article as it was published. Wikinews is not an encyclopedia."
• Removed photo that was relevent to article, citing the image was "POV". However, article clearly stated (at that time) that al-Zawahiri was a target of the attack, therefore relevent.

• Image removed once again, although third party replaced it.

• Violation of the NPOV policy.
• Personal attack on Amgine
• Accusing others of having a pro-US bias, however not acknowledging that he has an anti-US bias.

• These are just a few edits, I'm sure Amgine will have more. Obviously, if you look at all these edits, you will see the nature of the edits that Neutralizer has made on his time back. Adding to your comment about Neutralizer always being kind, Simeon, I've encountered similar instances, however usually only when he needs an Administrator action being done. From there on out, he continues his quite impolite method of editing. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 13:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Many of the items are plainly silly, and some of the NPOV claims are plainly wrong (and yes, some have merit). But instead of engaging into a detailed and unnecessary discussion on this list I would rather let Amgine speak for himself and detail his own reasons (Although this should be the starting point of a de-editing request and not an addendum...). --vonbergm 20:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone asked you to defend them, vonbergm. Simeon asked for a list, I provided one of what I thought were edits that were disruptive, and Amgine will provide one later. So, if you were to "refute" any of these, you should do it with Neutralizer's approval of that refute. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why I should ask for Neutralizer's 'approval' to "refute" statements made by you. Please explain. --vonbergm 20:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, you shouldn't try and defend someone without their permission. Nothing meant by it, just a suggestion. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you implying that you got Amgine's permission to post your list? Good effort! --vonbergm 20:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, ignore what I say. But, you wouldn't want to make a fool out of yourself by saying something that someone didn't want said, now would you? --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care about what people 'want' me to say. I guess that is a matter of taste though... --vonbergm 21:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Examination of Neutralizer's edits 0234 15 Jan - 0213 16 Jan UTC

This examination is at the request of User:Simeon. One comment before beginning the research: Wikinews is not a public forum. It is an online community and a wiki project focused around the creation, development, publication and archiving of articles about current events. Therefore Wikinews is not a place to "vehemently express strong views." Period.

Overview: User:Neutralizer was on a wikivacation from 1 January to 14 January. On his return to active editing he joined into contentious discussions regarding US actions in Pakistan, US foreign policy in regards to Venezuela, created an article about US prosecution of Guantanamo prisoners, and reopened a discussion regarding a list of edits he dislikes which he continues to maintain being linked on the water cooler. To give context, he has repeatedly been asked and promised to avoid articles about US political issues and foreign policy, he has been repeatedly asked and agreed to stop maintaining his list of edits, and he has previously agreed to leave the list off of the water cooler as a sign of his interest in peaceful collaboration.

Timeline

During the editing period leading up to his block, Neutralizer was active over two distinct time frames; an initial five hour period followed by a 7 hour break, then a 8 our session. A summary of his edit foci during these periods are:

• Five hour period
  1. Two articles covering the airstrike in Pakistan
  2. His list of edits which he disagrees with
  3. The article about former Guantanamo prisoner Omar Khadr

US airstrike in Pakistan

This article, at the time Neutralizer's first edit to its talk page, was a published breaking news article. [1] The title at the time was 18 killed in U.S. air strike on village in Pakistan. The article was undergoing its first major rewrite, moving the focus from the targeted attempted assassination of al-Zawahri to the results of that action (innocents killed, invasive force in the sovereign territory of Pakistan.)

• states agreement with a pov comment (which on examination is also incorrect according to the linked sources) from Kashifijazmalik, and adds comment that showing an image of reported target is POV. [2]
• removes image from article. [3]
• removes image from lead template. [4]
• States the use of the photo is pandering to serial murdering USA, that one or two editors are responsible (at this point at least 5 editors had added or modified the image, indicating the inaccuracy of the latter contention at least), not logged in [5], claiming the edit [6]
• disregards ("So what?") confirmation al-Zawahiri was invited to the village, calls the USA mass-murderer, orders contributors not to "buy into" the propaganda [7]. Modifies the somewhat bizarre "if satanic criminal thought his ex-wife might be among the 17" to "if the satanic criminal thought someone he hated might be among the 17" [8]
• Removes widly reported and well-sourced factual statements from the article [9]
• Fixes link—the second positive edit during this period [10] [11]
• Unprovable negative argument against MrMiscellanious on talk page [12] (signing [13], clarifying [14])

Assessment at this point: Neutralizer removes an image of the person which all but one source cited at the time of his edit reports as the target of the attack (the one which did not report al-Zawahiri as the target linked to an article about Russia's proposal regarding the Iranian nuclear research stand-off, and was later linked correctly to an article which reported the same as the others.) Neutralizer's stated reason as to why the image is POV is it assumes the US government is telling the truth. None of the sources report the targeting information had come from the US government, but from various unnamed sources either in the US or Pakistan secret services. While the truth of targeting may not be ascertainable by Wikinews, the factual statement is repeatedly sourced and, in the article, is listed as "US media reports claim" al-Zawahiri was the target of the attack.

• removes the image from the article again, not signed in [15]
• further statement regarding the veracity that the target was al-Zawahiri, rude comments regarding other contributors action showing a lack of good faith, not signed in [16]
• claims the anonymous edits [17]
• Removes NPOV statement (ascribed factual statement) from lead article, edit summary "removed deflective unsubstantiated speculation by anonymous and unreliable sources" [18]
• Style edit—third edit which was not specifically disruptive, POV (argued [19]), or otherwise negative [20]
• Disputing with MrMiscellanious (ad-hominem) [21], modifies to be more rude [22]
• Raises reasonable question in borderline reasonable manner (4th good edit?) [23]
• chastises Dragonfire regarding rumour, disregarding the NPOV's ascription formula, and insists he must provide proof (which is already extant in the article at this point in time), not logged in [24] claims it [25]
• Suggests USA is fascist, rants about CNN coverage [26], that it's our fault [27]
• Removed sourced content from article, edit summary: "remove US media "spin" on the story" [28]

Pakistanis condemn US airstrike

A method of "getting his opinion heard" used by Neutralizer in the past is to create second, third, or more articles about a given topic. While I consider this a good choice—most news events which are controversial have more than one angle which should be considered, and Wikinews should cover such events more completely—Neutralizer's method of operation has been to attack the other article as POV/poorly sourced/needing cleanup/any other tag to prevent its publication while pushing his alternative article quickly to publication. In short, he acts in bad faith.

• Creates additional article, not logged in [29]
• On talk page, adds msg which is confusing as the article is not, and has not been, tagged with anything [30], then blanks this message [31]
• Adds develop tag, 5th good edit [32]

Protests erupt in Pakistan over US air strike

• comment on talk page, accusing US government of stonewalling regarding the events [33]

User:Neutralizer/Delay and obstruction to articles that report the misdeeds of the U.S. government et al.

User:Neutralizer began tracking specific edits he disagreed with after Chiacomo and I explained how to create links to specific edits. (We've also attempted to convince him to use standard formating with spaces between such links so they look less like vandal attacks in difs, but to little avail.) He was maintaining this list on the Water cooler, and it consisted primarily of edits by admins he was targeting for harrassment. It was eventually moved to his talk page after several weeks of negotiations, and to an archive page when he learned to do those.

While I feel the list is in violation of wikiquette, I suggested he could add the {{flag}} template to the page if he felt it were of community-wide importance and so long as no one complained about a user's personal page being on the water cooler.

On several occasions he was encouraged by community members to remove the list. He stated in IRC to Xirzon/Eloquence he would no longer add to or publish it. He has been informed it is considered disruptive, and has challenged other users to build and maintain lists of edits they dispute by him.

• restores flag template (listing page on the Water cooler), adds images of Bush jr., + edits by MrMiscellanious (3 Dec 2005), MrMiscellanious (14 Jan 2006), MrMiscellanious (14 Jan 2006) [34]
• Note on my page stating why he is violating his word (his opinion WN is loaded with Pro-USA-POViors exemplified by the al-Zawahiri photo, see above) [35]
• Note on my page accusing me of acrimony, and blaming him for my withdrawing my nomination for adminship on en.Wiktionary (he is unaware I withdrew it due to a reasoned comment from an admin there.)
• + edit by Amgine (15 Jan 2006) [36]
• restore flag template (listing page on the Water cooler) [37]
• adding link I gave him [38] to his user space talk page [39]
• restore flag template, edit summary "Give it a rest, Amgine. I'm tired of the bull" [40]
• adding link I gave him [41] to a to his user space page [42]

Canadian teen faces US War Crimes court

Creates article regarding Omar Khadr. The article is rife with misinformation and misleading statements, some of which are contradicted by the sources cited others are purely made up ("Omar Khadr is the first teenager ever to face the charge of being a perpetrator of war crimes." Apparently Neutralizer has never heard of Rwanda's UN War Crimes Tribunal or of the Khmer Rouge.)

• Creation and initial edits [43]

Assessment at this point: the article is clearly POV, but is new and in development. I tagged the article as not correctly sourced ([44], explained on talk page [45]) in hopes the concerns would be addressed.

• Talk page response to my tag indicates Neutralizer did not read my explanation of concerns [46]
• Talk page response to my re-examination of the sources, with additional citation, indicates Neutralizer did not read my re-examination of the sources, or the additional citation, and includes an ad-hominem attack [47] and adds another attempt at rudeness [48]
• Removes article flag without consensus (or attempt at consensus) on the talk page [49]
• False dichotomy argument on talk page re article flags [50]
• Accusation of stalking (particularly humorous considering his actions on Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Journowiki, and elsewhere.) [51]

User talk:Neutralizer

I am of the opinion a user's talk page may contain whatever the user chooses so long as it is not harrassing of other contributors or offensive to the community (this is based on the Wikipedia policy regarding user pages.) This does not change the fact all pages, in the user namespace or elsewhere, are part of Wikinews and subject to the community's policies and guidelines.

• Response to my comment ([52]), in which Neutralizer accuses me of abuse and "tamper"ing with his user page [53]
• Response to MrMiscellanious's comment ([54]), in which Neutralizer accuses MrMiscellanious of POV editing, and baits him regarding the list of edits [55]
• Response to Bawolff and Edbrown05 - the first non-confrontational, disruptive, or POV edit since his return [56]
• Response to MrMiscellanious's suggestion to remove the list or be equally targeted [57], Neutralizer 'calls his bluff' [58], and expands it [59]
• Response to MrMiscellanious's bluster by questioning his integrity, saying his "challenges are nothing but hot-air." [60]
• An accusation I am a troll [61]

Venezuela will buy Spanish planes with European technology

This article covers large purchase of military airframes by Venezuela from Spain, controversial because the United States has attempted to veto or sabotage the purchase on more than one occasion - most recently by not allowing Spain to include technology elements which are licensed in the USA. Spain's solution to the situation was to locate replacement European parts and Venezuela released a communique which sharply criticized the USA's decision saying the real justification is the US's imperialism via the war on drugs in South America.

• page move from "Venezuela issues response after attempt to buy Spanish planes fails" moved to "Spain defies US pressure" - imo a reasonable if sensational title for the article (4th good edit) - [62]
• reorder paragraph, 6th good edit [63]
• Accuses MrMiscellanious of threatening [64]

Wikinews:Water cooler/policy

Neutralizer has a history of bringing personal disputes to the Water cooler. He has been asked on several occasions to keep personal disputes on personal talk pages, and to bring them to the attention of administrators where a personal dispute is not resolvable, to the alert page if an imminent issue. Since he has done all these things previously he is aware of these steps in dispute resolution.

• Brings dispute to the Water cooler policy section [65], with various refinements [66], [67], [68]

Humble suggestion

Rather than getting into more heated discussions, let's scrap this request for de-edit. It will not go through anyway (for reasons of principle and merit), and merely serves to further fortify the positions of different camps and spread "bad energy" (how I hate that language, but sometimes it just fits...). Let's rather put our energies into arbcom so that we can find a lasting solution on how to deal with perceived and actual disruptive behavior. If people feel that there is need for immediate action, I am sure that some short-term solutions (e.g. some sort of mentoring progam), can be worked out. --vonbergm 21:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If history is any guideline at all, that doesn't work. I've heard at least a dozen calls for allowing people to "reform" the actions; however either the users do not perform those actions, or that their work goes unnoticed and nothing changes. There has been no response on his end of these "mentoring" programs. I would say "go ahead and try if you think you can handle it", but nothing ever changes. Short-term solutions are proven ineffective as well. What we're looking at is an unconditional goal set by this user (to do exactly what, I don't know and don't care) - and this goal is producing disruptive behavior on his behalf. There is no more rope, everything short of extreme measures such as this have been attempted, and all have failed. I know there is at least one user currently active who has tried to reform Neutralizer, to no avail. I do not believe he can focus on what others are trying to get through to him - may it be arrogance or not. Normally, I would agree with the reformation. This specific case, however, is too extreme and too dire to be left to a cause that has been proven ineffective in the past - despite numerous empty promises, which this user also has proven not to be able to keep. I acknowledge your efforts, vonbergm, but I don't believe you have completely analyzed the user's actions, or his responses to such attempts. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As Eloquence argued, de-editing a user will likely create worse problems then it was intended to "fix". On top of that, the reality is that this request will not go through. Arbcom and/or some short-term soft solutions (attempts) are the only options here. So lets focus on these! --vonbergm 22:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is an existing Arbcom framework which has been approved by the community. It only lacks an election of arbcom members. Feel free to begin nominating members as I fear any nominations I might make would be considered potentially biased. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, I am the active user who has tried to reform Neutralizer, as mentioned above by MrMiscellanious. I made an effort to encourage Neutralizer to avoid articles where his personal bias did not allow him to make a positive contribution, and he said he would make an effort to comply with that. The specific details of this was to avoid articles about the US where he seems unable to suppress his passionate political views and report according to NPOV.

Is this de-edit process the way to deal with the situation? I really don't know, but I very much doubt it. My opinion is that it was this at the time it was done, or disruption leading up to yet another RfdA for one of the two administrators that Neutralizer has a problem with. Yes, those would likely be the same administrators who blocked him when he first appeared here as User:NPOV, and he did try to misrepresent himself as personifying NPOV policy on Wikipedia by redirecting the User:NPOV page to the w:NPOV page. I see little evidence that he has changed from his belief that he personifies a Wikimedia policy and all others are wrong. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum Neutralizer has emailed me (again, and something I thought I made clear I dislike) pointing out that user NPOV on Wikipedia was from 2003, and has no relation with him. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Trying to build a case against another participant at Wikinews to have them removed doesn't seem to work. I'm glad. -Edbrown05 03:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I have discussed the user NPOV with Neutralizer in IRC, I believe the association I have made above is inappropriate following this discussion. There are nearly two years between the creation of the username on Wikipedia and Wikinews, and there was no attempt to imply the user represented policy on wikinews.

That out of the way, Neutralizer seemed to acknowledge that he had a problem writing stuff that would be accepted as NPOV. I've suggested he bring up sources and alternate aspects of stories on talk pages and write his own editorials in his user space. I think the latter is particularly important because a blog/editorial portal based on a small group of contributors could increase readership without compromising the core principals. Provided that the "editorial" team made no attempt to influence the reporters. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think there should be a blog/editorial portal, with the agreement it will NOT be used to influence writers and or editors. Afterall, most news sites and newspapers have some kind of editorial section. But I also agree that editorials should remain on the user page because they are mostly that persons POV. But I think with very close monitoring and admins. watch that portal very very carefully then I think it could possibly work. Jason Safoutin 22:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)