User talk:Ironiridis/2

Talk page archives cmyka
Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4	Archive 5	Vandalism
Mar 2 2006 Apr 9 2006	Apr 9 2006 May 28 2006	May 28 2006 Aug 2 2007	Aug 3 2007 Sep 17 2007	Sep 17 2007 Jun 12 2009	Sep 19 2007 Sep 19 2007

Archived

For more previous conversations, discussions, complaints and complements, see Archive 1. irid:t 16:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Countdown

Screw it. I'm done waiting for Neutralizer to be satisfied with my willing compliance with a block. I'm back. irid:t 14:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Congratulations, you are now an admin/sysop. If you need any help please feel free to contact me or another admin. Before using your new powers please remember to review and try to follow our policies. Good luck :) --Cspurrier 14:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

congrats. see those nice big buttons; press them a few times, just to get used to the feel of it. :) Doldrums 18:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

*cries* Scary... irid:t 19:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats and welcome! Remember that adminship confers no authority or special editing rights. Adminship is a mop and bucket, not a stick. - Borofkin 00:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

congrats, The cabal welcomes you, adminship is all work and no play :) Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 01:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Most assuredly, I tell you: I just want to make the policy true, the falicy false, and the POV always somewhere in between. :) (I'm waiting for someone to quote this in 8 months on my RfdA) irid:t 01:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

-Thanks for your message. Congratulations and happy editing to you... I hope we as a community can work to report news in a fun and engaging atmosphere; towards that end, I had no objections to your adminship nomination. Best regards. -Edbrown05 01:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A favor? (Username change)

Hi, ironiridis. Could you give your powers a little whirl and rename me? I'd like my name changed from my current one (it doesn't roll off the tongue exactly) to Flipbaywood. Thank you so much. ReporterFromAfar3136 01:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Only bureaucrats can rename users, so I have renamed ReporterFromAfar3136 as he requested --Cspurrier 14:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad

I find this very unkind written:

"What you believe (with your limited knowledge of the situation) is completely irrelevant, International. irid:t 13:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)"

You better be nice as users may see an administrator as an example. And this is not a good one. international 14:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Depending upon context, it's perfectly valid to state that one's belief is irrelevant when reporting an event - belief implies speculation, which may be the indication of an editorial, not a news story. In another context, it might be unnecessarily unkind. Karen 14:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If it was particularly unkind, my apologies; I was on my way out the door to work. irid:t 14:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Your apologies accepted. international 14:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussions with User:Vonbergm

I've archived some interesting discussions with Vonbergm here. irid:t 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

patrick moore nuke energy article

hi, can u check Greenpeace founder supports nuclear energy for balance of pov. the article reports on an advocacy piece. it needs to be checked for accurate portrayal of moore's piece, and, i think, balanced by the responses (or prior counterarguments) of the other side of the fence, which it currently does not have. thanks. Doldrums 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

archive

That would be great. I have no idea how to do this. And maybe we can open up a separate page for our discussions as this seems to take up quite some space lately. ;-) Thanks, that's perfect. --vonbergm 20:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice summary, thanks. Feels good to be able to have a constructive discussion on issues. --vonbergm 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

re: Your recent talk page comments

I thnk part my answer to your query on 'My Talk' page is answered with the post I made on the Talk:U.S. claims of Iraqi bioweapons labs contradicted in classified Pentagon report filed on 27 May 2003 page.

I've been thinking some dangerous thoughts, and fully agree with what you posted on my talk page. But I can't fail to include with my comments to you a thinking I've held and stated maybe 6 months ago, that my interest with Wikinews is to increase participation. I believe greater numbers of contributors will enhance the project... after that... my thinking becomes vague, as was my post to MrMiscellnious' talk page.

I not for abandaning what isn't broken. And I don't think anything is broken around here. -Edbrown05 21:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

To develop this a little futher...

...typical of me, I take a flip side of the coin evaluation of a topic, or a put yourself in the other person's shoe view... -Edbrown05

Either work Wikinews from the World news side down to the local level, or work it from the Local level up. There seems more interest in working it from the world level down. But I have thinkings that's wrong...

Working it from the local level up means the messy issues too numerous to mention.

That's why my thought are incomplete, because it's messy :) Edbrown05 00:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And that's why I thought to raise the issue of excluding the use of sources to back up news stories submitted by contributors, because I do believe the community will see through a reporter. -Edbrown05 00:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And if the community can't, then the reporter can't publish until the community has confidence the person can. -Edbrown05 00:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

blocks and personal attacks

Ironiridis, just to follow up on the block #2 and Ed's comments. (I thought this might be a better place than the Action Alerts page.) First of all, I completely agree with Amgine's post and while I support the block I would hope that next time you would find someone else to apply it. Secondly, please be aware that personal attacks, while seldom as blatant as in this case, happen quite a bit on wikinews, but the application of blocks tends to focus on individual users. The "lazy" comment is listed in the arbcom case, but that has nothing to do with whether or not to block. Similarly, you chose not block a user for You are a disgraceful editor, which constitute a clear and quite blatant personal attack. There are more, although less blatant attacks on the same talk page, and this happened just two days before this string of attacks by the same user. I believe that Ed's question on disparate application of blocking policy deserves a closer look by you. --vonbergm 02:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ironiridis, I agree that a retroactive block does not make any sense. A simple warning message seems to be the way to go, and imho would probably be more effective than a block, even if it is handed out in a timely fashion, if the message comes with a short explanation and is written by someone the user in question respects. But that is just my personal opinion on how to improve this site. And while I am at it, on the slightly different topic of site disruption, I have a strong feeling that Neutralizer has previously gotten blocked for unconstructive editing behaviour that was far less agressive than the one displayed by MrM on [1]. I admit that I did not shuffle to the block history to verify this, so I might be wrong, but I have a strong feeling that if Neutralizer was behaving like this he would have been blocked. Not that I believe that a block is necessarily the correct response here, but I can't fail but note the absence of comments by people that MrM seems to trust (which could easily have been places on talk pages if that was really the issue here). --vonbergm 03:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have quite some trouble understanding your argument. First, as mentioned above, I do not understand why blocking policy does not apply to people who are involved in a case at arbcom. Second, Neutralizer also has a case running at arbcom -- the very same case -- but he is getting blocked. Thridly, I do not believe that this very recent behaviour of MrM is listed at the arbcom page at all. (Is that what you ment by "recorded"?) Most of the content was added to the arbcom case a couple of weeks ago -- but I might be simply not up to date since I have not really followed much of the arbcom lately.

I agree that the social tone of this wiki has become quite raw and that something should be done. Stricter enforcement might help, we will see... --vonbergm 14:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Attempting This

I just realized that you edited my talk page, and that I have a talk page! Thanks for the welcome, babe. I'm testing the water of leaving comments, so I guess we'll see how this goes! Aramistin 05:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of adminship

I am officially requesting immediate removal of Administrator status from my account. irid:t 23:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Please make this request on WN:A --Chiacomo ^(talk) 23:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't. Check this instead. irid:t 23:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Good enough, I suppose. Sorry to see you giving up your +sysop bit. :( --Chiacomo ^(talk) 23:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? Of all of us you your proablly the calmest, and most rational. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure. What I want to avoid is an instance where my porcelain facade cracks. ;) irid:t 01:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions while in performance of active adminship. You've helped spur interest and improvement in the cite's blocking policies, no small achievement. The steps you took to examine and apply your views has been a positive result for all of us. You really shouldn't step down for reasons of self doubt if that is what is compelling you. You should be proud. -Edbrown05 03:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong. Confusions and accidents happen. No big deal. (another related conversation) Nyarlathotep 15:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Your request at m:Requests for permissions has been fulfilled. Kind regards — Dan | talk 19:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What a joke. I'm not buying it. Neutralizer 20:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I see you still like to attack people even after you have been warned Neutralizer. Jason Safoutin 20:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not an attack; I'm just saying I do not believe it. That's called freedom of thought,Jason. Neutralizer 20:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

If it were my talk page, I would condsider "what a trollish joke" an attack. Jason Safoutin 20:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you feel it's an "attack" word; I will remove it; but you should know it's been used to describe me several times with no consequence to the editors who used it.e.g.; "User may be a wiki-anarchist or troll."[2] Neutralizer 20:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Block revoked

I revoked your requested block after BrianMC & Karen echoed my views on it. Sorry, but admins are not allowed to block themselves, and IMHO this includes asking another admin to do it for you. But, more to the point, *we* simply can't see how you did anything wrong. Of course, you're free to impose some limitations on yourself if you like. But thats a matter between you and yourself. Confusion happens. 'Tis life. Nyarlathotep 13:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking people with whom he was in conflict and also abusing admin privilege with an arrogant 1 month block might be something *we* would consider wrong. Don't worry; Ironiridis will be back; I guarantee it. Neutralizer 20:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I wasn't allowed to block myself, either. Consider yourself released for time served. Karen 20:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is, unsolicited, my opinion on your actions as admin.

I believe you have acted in good faith in an effort to move the project forward, that you understand the project goals and work towards them, and that you're just too damn sensitive to criticism.

Drop the leaving stuff and de-admin stuff, I trust you to do a good job as an admin, and have said so elsewhere. Your reluctance to get involved in disputes but end up informed enough to pass opinion is a valuable asset, and you attitude towards disruptive users is what the "admin corps" need, please don't leave the project. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Who worry you may not stay. I already know you will....so let me be the first to say "Welcome Back!" Neutralizer 20:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What, me worry? Karen 20:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You're showing your age,Alfred E.:) Neutralizer 21:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You are all wonderful.

Thanks guys for showing concern. I'm going to serve out my 30 day self-imposed block, because I feel it was justified. And, Neutralizer, I never said I was leaving the project. I simply said that I participated in a wheel war, and as such, I should be blocked for the length of time that is appropriate. One particular admin felt that 30 days was a sufficient block for a wheel-warring admin; I am taking that to heart.

Neutralizer, I'm sad to see that you lied to us about never coming back. Very sad. irid:t 18:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You're unblocked already! The wheel war, which you failed to influence one way or the other, has hit the article count. Serving out a self-imposed ban doesn't help the wiki. There's by-elections in Thailand tomorrow, and I could probably do with a copyedit or three on the reports of people abstaining, tearing up their ballots, and perhaps even shooting at election officials. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely, it doesn't assist the wiki directly, however, in being aware of and considerate of Wikinews policy and practice, I am bettering the wiki indirectly. In consideration and observance of policy from a distance, I can gain a better understanding of why my block was merited.

Understand, my block duration was taken directly from the actions of others on this wiki (and myself) in observance of what was felt as an appropriate block length. I gave myself the maximum block length that had been suggestion, to gain a better understanding of what a block of that magnitude does to a community.

As I've said before: My insistance is not based on practicality, but on principality. If I am, or another admin is, able to issue a block of 30 days, I should be able to observe a block of 30 days myself to understand its implication. irid:t 21:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, pile-on time: copying some comments from IRC for public consumption and response.

You attempted in good faith to de-escalate a conflict. It went on anyway. You are not to blame for this, and that your particular method was not effective is not something to fault you for.

It does neither you nor the project good to stick out a self-imposed block simply because you have said you will, when your presence would be of more benefit; as you have already engaged in reflection upon your actions I do not see any good to be gained by your continued absence. And community consensus seems to want you back!

(Incidentally: I have voted to ban people from en.wp. Do you think I should ban myself, to understand the implication?) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What she said. If you think you're disrupting or have disrupted the site by being an admin, be a user for awhile. I urge you to consider just editing articles during your self-imposed time away from those extra buttons (Well, they're links). I know I've done my share of disrupting, hopefully in disrupting some of the ways that seem wrong to me. Karen 21:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Karen's suggestion here, don't use the admin buttons if you must in some way do a pennance. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This might be a little ironic.

Given, and considering, the situation with my block (that is, it's been lifted)... and given and considering my situation with my user rights (that is, I'm no longer an admin)... I feel extremely motivated today. I might get re-blocked for personal attacks. I hope everyone is crossing their fingers.

I'm willingly serving out a self-imposed 30 day block. I initially had User:Ral315 do it for me. Ral, I'm very appreciative for that, thank you. :)

I'm still going to make this note on my talk page, as I would normally be able to if I were blocked.

I'm still in the process of creating this little doodad of a report... but I'm tired and I have to get up early tomorrow. So I'll save it for next time.

Ahem, okay. Now that the introduction is over:

Neutralizer is an intentionally disruptive force

Hello, and welcome, to Neutralizer's little sideshow. Let me show you around.

Note, please that I may be completely wrong on any or all of the facts which I cannot explicitly prove. That's the fun of a wiki; you can twist reality into your own little sphere of influence where everyone believes everything you say. What follows is a demonstration that Neutralizer has done exactly that.

His user page

This was the state of Neutralizer's talk page the last time I edited it. This was immediately preceeding the recent wheel war, and therefore immediately preceeding my block.

• Neutralizer is good at making war, so carefully examine that page. At the top, he placed a giant peace sign, a dramatic sunrise, and quotes by John Lennon and Jesus Christ. Ponder these things while we wander down this exquisite road of lies and insults.
• Following these great icons of peace, love, and banality, are two "templates" that Neutralizer offers up to the community. Pay careful attention to the tone of urgency in each of them. Surely, these are the tools of champions.
  • The first is a note about avoiding an Anglo-American point of view. I won't go into detail about the capitalization and punctuation issues. I bring this up to point out the incredible irony of this "template". I know, without any prior knowledge of his ethnicity or locale, that Neutralizer is a 16-22 year old white American male. He has never been over-seas, if out of the country at all. He has an incredible idealistic image of himself as being a figure of impartiality. Most of all, he feels he is above the reproach of anyone who (willingly or not) has an American point of view. Remember, this is the same point of view Neutralizer has had his entire life.
  • The second template is especially amusing; it admonishes others (but certainly not himself) about not following Wikinews:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. One might keep in mind that these are policies he has routinely and flagrantly ignored in his communications with others on this site. Finally, he bolds the text "get nice" and wraps up cleanly with an inappropriate usage of a semicolon, followed by "thank you". Why, you're welcome!
• Some innocent article lists that everyone should have are next on the trolly. This is likely our cleanest section.
• Now, let's get into the meat of this. Two sections, one with improper wikimarkup, indicate that Neutralizer will be taking an absence. His tone almost indicates that it's unwilling. How unfortunate. He also indicates that he'll probably be gone for at least a month. Oh, how we rejoiced! Rejoice rejoice rejoice, until...
• ... a personal attack rears its ugly head, not even a week into the vacation we all thought we had. Juicy tidbits from this one include Or are you CHICKEN and just like to hang back in your computer hole and keep truthful news from maybe exposing the murderers and liars you protect. Oh, Neut. You get a C... try to eliminate the run-on sentences next time.
• Seeing this personal attack, I took appropriate action and blocked Neutralizer. Given his extensive previous history of not giving a flying sexual slang phrase about policy, and seeing his block record, I gave him a 30 day block. Many disagreed, reluctantly, and I relented. 24 hours would be fine for this little stunt. Oh, but what joy those 24 hours would be compared to the next few days.
• Having blocked Neutralizer, he had full ability to edit his user page, and edit he did. He even made a comment (to which I replied) which he later changed to cast me in a perverse light. Cunning! I'll give him that much. His comments seemed to indicate that some users we censoring his voice on his own user page. I guess he already forgot about the whole etiquette thing.

Comments, if any

Feel free to criticize, impersonate, or otherwise, below this comment. Thanks. irid:t 03:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. I totally forgot about continuing this thing. Heh.

I read Neutralizer's sort-of-half-assed rebuttal. It's funny that the only point he can make is about "assumptions", whereas the remainder of my rant has nothing to do with that. I wonder what he has to say about his blatent hipocracy? What about his attacks? Hmm. Should I even mention the fact that his POV (or, the POV of people he "knows") on certain historical events is questionable?

I guess I'll continue this when I have some time. Work has been nuts and time has been short. Unfortunately for myself, work always needs to come first. Food before fun, I guess they say. In the mean time, if you'd like to pay to have my car fixed, I really appreciate that. irid:t 20:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ironiridis, regarding to your comment above to me; "I'm sad to see that you lied..." irid:t 18:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC); I must say that I'm not glad to see that you lied about so many things; the project does not need any more liars. Neutralizer 01:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's not helpful to be starting up a personal vendetta on your talk page; that won't get you any votes from the better contributors at your next Rfa. Neutralizer 01:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer, firstly, please tell me where I've lied.

Secondly, the whole reason why I've been de-admined is because I'm not fond of the situations it put me in. I'd rather be working on articles, and as I'm sure you've noticed, that stopped almost exactly the moment I was admined. Surely it's not helpful to be starting a vendetta on your talk page, as well? irid:t 15:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that Neutralizer has failed to come up with anything material. Here's hoping he figures this one out; I'd really like to see where I've lied on this Wiki. irid:t 15:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you quit?

We can still use you on articles even if you are no longer an admin. What's going on? Neutralizer 01:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So you believe me now? Yes, I've been de-admined. I was also blocked for 30 days. I'm completing that 30 day block, which should be finished on or about the 19th, I think. Apologies for not editing your talk page to reply. irid:t 20:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked, personal attack on WN:ALERT read WN:E Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 10:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, will do. irid:t 10:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Egad. I think I found some justification for my actions within WN:E. Under words of advice:

show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would
waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.

I think that settles it. Acting by Wikinews Etiquette, I am (as well as every other user is) entitled to run Neutralizer right out of town. irid:t 10:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

you need to establish that neut is a troll, vandal or wiki-anarchist first, and "run him out of town" by a block. keep in mind that trolls ,vandals and wiki-anarchists like nothing better than various editors constantly telling each other to go ... on the wiki while wiki-editors don't particularly. but i guess you've made ur point.

btw, i modified your signed edit. how do u like that, you ... :) Doldrums 11:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have advised Neutralizer to be civil, reasonable, and to follow the guidelines he constantly screams about being ignored. Yes, I've told him to take a break. I've even told him to leave Wikinews for the benefit of the project. I do not constantly rail against him in a campaign to have him "banned for life" (as he would put it). Neutralizer is a disruptionist and a wiki-anarchist. He disrupts the wiki on a daily basis. Therefore, he is a troll.

btw, you can edit anything you wish, but I'll be reverting that, thank you. irid:t 12:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why are you doing this? Some time ago you asked why I opposed your RFA. You get an answer now. I dont like you hate against Neutralizer, wasnt sure think you handle it rationally. Obviously Brian opend Pandoras Box here but that dont give you the clearens to mess tings upp even bigger. Dont you understand what you are doing. I think you should stay away until you calm down, and that may be longer time than you initially thought. international 11:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• I am no longer an admin. I don't have the responsibilities of an admin as of right now. I'd like to see you pull up anything that I've done which was irresponsible while I was an admin.
• You don't like that I don't like Neutralizer? Tough, man. Sorry. I don't "hate" him, hate is too strong of a word for an individual that is hardly worth my frustration. I don't like that you don't like me.
• Brian opened no Pandora's Box. Neutralizer has antagonized and irritated and aggravated and finally violated someone enough times to bring them to the brink. International, I have no reason not to believe you are a sockpuppet. irid:t 12:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good that you showed your real self, sad to see it. Some here, you included, dont understand that Neutralizer is not a propagandamashin as you wrote. He has been under attack by mostly mrm as long as I been here and tried to npow many articles with US consevative POV. I guess it taken some toll on him and he screwed it but he is really important here on Wikinews. You do a big mistake to go on personal vendetta against Neutralizer. Or maybe you cant understand that comman Usians wordview is strongly pov in wikienviroment. Dragon and mrm is totaly lost in this to cracy US worldview. I still hope you can think of Wikinews NPOV policy as very diferent than common accepted values in US. It is OK to write articles that is really harsh on US doings and against other states that deserve it. It is the duty for anyone who call him/herself a reporter or journalist. It is also a responability not to forward spinn, here on Wikinews mostly the US Gov spinn, which obviously many Usians is so used to that they see as natural. I dont think you and many US people cant imagine how people around the world despise curent US. Even I am have been horified about som expresions of US hate here and there in Europe and that is nothing about what I heard from South America and otherplaces. So what I say is that If you and some other wikinewsies clean out a tendence of US critical articles by throwing out Neutralizer it is nothing less than a part US war of hegemony. I only show my indignation in this way. But more an more of your taxdollar is going to be spend on protection from people who like to nuke US, sometime they might find a way to do it and it may spill over to where I live. And you are not helpfull to find a better solution by silencing Neutralizer. Journalism is more important than ever. Have a nice day. international 17:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about with Neutralizer. You assume I have this pro-US political view when in fact I'm extremely irratated and angry with the current state of our government. I voted against Bush and against the war. I wasn't for it even when it was popular. And yet, I insist on articles being neutral, not anti US. You suggest that I am trying to erase the evils that the United States have recently committed, but what you don't understand is that there are many more who create political rumors and falacies and take certain facts and stretch them far out of proportion... for what? The fact that Bush was a member of the Skull and Bones matters to nobody except conspiracy theorists. But still they shout it from every hilltop as if they were proclaiming the discovery of gravity.

You are extremely misguided, International. I'm sorry, but you don't have the faintest clue of what a neutral point of view is. As much as you accuse me of being biased for being inside of the United States, I could accuse you of being biased for being outside of the United States. There is no solid ground here except in personal integrity and facts, of which you seem to have provided none in this discussion so far.

I think it's ironic that you say I've "showed" my "real self". In reality, I've always been truthful about my personal feelings and opinions. Read my user page. I've never once lied on this wiki, not once. I have always been clear about my political stance. However, I do not let it pollute Wikinews as if it were my personal blog. This is in stark contrast to Neutralizer, who is using his user page for the purpose of political propoganda.

My real self, eh? Perhaps you've just not been paying attention. irid:t 19:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you and some others have an idea that npuv is the same as be kind about the involved in an article and neutral. An article can be very 'antiUSA' and npov. 'AntiUS, is a pov in the eyes of a person with sympaties for US due to patriotism if he is a patriotic USian. To make an article about pictures taken from guantanamo showing lots of shit and dont show them just because that would be antiUS is fecking wrong. Of cause it would be antiUS in some persons eyes. Now these persons here on Wikinews puched their pov and blocked the display of these. In the name of missunderstod (?) npov. Neutrality and kindnes is not same as npov. And journalism is not kind. The pen is sharp and it could be put deep in the most painfull places If reporting bad things. If USians get so fecking angry about draging US in the dirt for what US actually doing you might thing how angry the victims and their relatives is about what actually happen! And to even suggest neutrality in an article accusing US for torture is really effective povpushing. I accuse you to taking side of US povpushers. To bring up Neutralizers conspiracy theorists in this, as if that should be political propaganda, is petty. Nowdays he shows signs of 'Wikiburnout' which is bloody understandable. I can give you political propaganda, whish I se as a good thing, but i guess my political pov dont fit in the 2 biggest US political partys (Not Naders either so say 3 biggest). And I leave that outside Wikinews. And you call me missguided. I dont know what to call you, but living in US dont generally make one to a rocketscientist but obviously learn one to talk about rockets with loud voice. international 23:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I realise English is not your first language, but I'm having a hard time understanding what point you're trying to make. Are you implying I was trying to suppress the pictures in USA leaving Abu Ghraib? Maybe you should check out the position I held before I found out that the pictures violated the Geneva Convention. [3] [4]

International, remember, "Neutral Point Of View" means that we cannot include anything except facts, and these facts must be balanced between major viewpoints. This does not mean supressing information, nor does it mean including false information. Thus, yes, an article can be critical of the United States, but only in facts. Your assertion that an article can be 'very antiUSA' seems to imply that an article can have an opinion, which it cannot. This is why I'm saying that you don't understand what NPOV means here. Just because many, many people have a negative view of the United States (including myself!!), does not mean that we are allowed to create articles with a particular, non-neutral point of view. We must be balanced and fair.

As such, it is not fair for you to assert (just as an example) that Bush hates Iraqis, so that's why they're being tortured. This has no factual source, and is not provable with facts. It is also not fair to say that Bush is indirectly responsible for the torture, because he started the war and the Iraqis wouldn't be tortured if there hadn't been a war. There is no way to prove that with facts, either. Thus, blaming President Bush for the Iraqi torture is implausible and not appropriate for an article.

Remember, that's just an example, not something I'm claiming you've done. These things, while they seem reasonable on the surface, are extremely poor ideas to include in an NPOV article.

Likewise, Neutralizer has included content in Wikinews pages (not neccessarily articles, he does excersize that restraint) that would make similar suggestions. His push for items critical of the United States and President Bush often fall within this realm; an excellent example being the graphic that was on his user page.

When he adds this content to Wikinews, it pollutes the wiki with Anti-US messages. While specifically only articles are subject to NPOV, his editing does tend to introduce subtle changes that reflect his obvious viewpoint.

What is key here is the fact that his viewpoint begins to leak into his edits on real, NPOV articles, which is obviously what we're trying to avoid. What springs immediately to mind is his insistance on inclusion of Bush's membership in the Skull and Bones "secret" society. The introduction, while factual, generates a slant on the article that tilts it far far away from a Neutral viewpoint.

The point I'm trying to make is that, yes, I do understand NPOV, and I don't think you get the whole picture. That said, I really do appreciate every edit you've made on Wikinews as a contribution of your time and effort, and I recognize that the edits you have made were all in good faith as far as I can tell. I haven't made good faith edits recently, because I've been so angry with Neutralizer that it's relatively blinded me to justifiable restraint.

I will make a bigger effort to hold my toungue in the future. Keep in mind, however, that as Neutralizer continues to pressure and aggrivate the people on this Wiki, including myself... I will find restraint particularly difficult. irid:t 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No your understaning of English is correct, actually better than correct (I wrote guantanamo). I do not implying you was trying to suppress the pictures in USA leaving Abu Ghraib. It was a example, actually many articles in mind, to make you understand someting. Btw on same talkpage you refer to there is a discusion you obviusly missed Geneva Convention doesn't Apply. After more reading I now see that this was the talkpage that made me qustion your position when you defended Dragons povpushing (though well camoflaged to ignoranse). Dislike Neutralizer, defend Dragon... I really believd you was a sockpuppet/meatpuppet for some time. And Dragon have problems with some understanding here as about NPOV generally, still today.

Understand NPOV as 'AntiUS' is a pov term. If someone think an article is 'antiUS' its an opinion/view depending on that persons eventually US patriotism wich dont have to mean article is pov. 'AntiUS' is not same as 'antiUS pov in article' whish is an opinion in an article, which is bad in an article. If facts make an article seems 'antUS' in someons eyes there is nothing nessesary wrong with the article (if it dosnt really express pov). Someons worldview goes against the facts. Its someons own problem if not accepting facts.

Fact: US is accused of abuse prisoners in Abu Ghraib.

Fact: Pictures from Abu Ghraib showing this is leaked.

More or less a fact: US use torture in Abu Grhaib.

NPOV: to have statement that claim US use torture

NPOV: to have US denying torture.

POV: to make it neutral. (show Saddams torturevictims or show pictures of the US guards goldfish and stampcollection?)

POV: to make it kind to US and dont show pictures. (censoring)

To make a article about this shit will be 'antiUS' in many peoples eyes even if NPOV. To make it more neutral and kinder to those people is povpushing. Thats what happend and you are angry about Neutralizers small conspiratory theories! Dragons very loudvoiced povpushing made working with articeles to a povhell. And you defend him and seems to be his buddy. And we must not be "balanced and fair", leave that to FOX News and other USGov friendly so called News. And yes Neutralizer is blogging little on his userpage and thats not serious. Not mush more than expressing his opinion. Your indignation about it is irrational, userpages has no exposure outside itself. And the mentiond grafic, your indignation here is redicilous to the extent I think Dragon:s and mrm:s patriotic cracyness really affected you. You should not listen or talk with them if you are so easy to manipulate. And you continue to state "key here is the fact that his viewpoint begins to leak into his edits on real, NPOV articles". Yes, many do that sometimes. The problem is that some already mentiond here have done it for months, and you dont react to that in proportion to your reactions to Neutralizer. There is words for that behavour. As I said before Nutralizer show signs of burnout and should take it easy. He have seen and reacted to things you are obviously blind to and inderect supports by supporting Dragon. Not to mention your still wrong understanding of NPOV after my try to explain how it work when facts inself can be interpretated 'antiUS' by US patriots, some who exist here on Wikinews.

I conclud that you dont show to understand NPOV in these cases discused above. Though I would appreciate if you calm down on Neutralizer and dont attack him or overreact on him in this eviroment of much worser povpushings. international 19:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that then Geneva convention did apply on those images. The captives had a right to their privacy. We abide by international law here. Your example falls flat on its face, I'm sorry. Can we move on? irid:t 20:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the sake of argument (no pun intended), yes, I haven't been a particularly effective contributer recently. I made one edit to a real article. This is mostly due to my impromptu attack on Neutralizer taking up most of my motivation to work on this site. I'm trying to come up with reasons to simply work on JournoWiki instead of Wikinews and simply transport finished or semi-finished articles from there to here, where Neutralizer can add whatever POV he wishes.

The idea that you thought I was a sock/meatpuppet is not suprising. You seem to be extremly short-sighted and unable to comprehend a world-view other than your own. Neutralizer agrees with your world-view, or at least panders to it. This is evidenced by the lack of any real disagreement between Neutralizer and yourself, despite enormous disagreement with virtually every other active editor (with some notable and important exceptions!) on Wikinews. Claiming that I seemed to be a meatpuppet because I agreed with someone (and with whom I subsequently disagreed vehemotly) is akin to claiming you are likewise a meatpuppet of Neutralizer's.

I'm really tired of trying to discuss this with you, because you don't type in English particularly well and it takes me a great deal of time to pick apart and understand what you're trying to say. This isn't a personal attack, it's simply a statement of my frustration. As I said above: Can we move on? irid:t 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you have real big problems understanding my English. international 20:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You are blocked

You are blocked for two hours for personal attacks against Neutralizer, which I believe were made in a premeditated manner and possibly to make a point. If you dispute this block, I'm available in IRC, via e-mail, or on my user page after your block has expired. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 14:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

More or less premeditated, yeah. Made a point, too. I do apologize for the site disruption aspect. :) irid:t 14:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have extended the block to the same 24 hour period that was given to Brianmc. I agree in part that Wikinews should be uncensored but do not believe that it is appropriate for such language on the site. To allow this only harms the credibility of the site - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 23:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I more or less encouraged a more hefty block. Even 24 hours seems a little slim. Ah well. irid:t 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ironiridis... if you've finished making your point can you please remove the section from WN:ALERT? If you think that there is a problem that still needs to be discussed, I encourage you to raise it on the water cooler. Thanks... - Borofkin 04:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I would, but I am blocked (for real) and cannot edit that page. Feel free to remove it yourself; I would if I could. irid:t 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Supporting Cartman02au

Will someone vote on my behalf in support of User:Cartman02au? I'd really appreciate it. irid:t 21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Cartman02au took care of this. Thanks man. irid:t 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Disappointed

Ironiridis, I am quite disappointed by some of your edits that have caught people's attention. The points of offense in decreasing order of offensiveness:

1. Your use of possessive pronoun in the last sentence of this edit. This is absolutely not acceptable
2. The quotation marks on the last statement of this edit make clear that you are well aware of the history of this quote. This statement only serves to offend and escalate.
3. You are wrong arguing that Brian's and your use of offensive language is covered by wikinews' non-censorship policy. I agree that there should be no problem with profanity when appropriate and necessary, but your and Brian's use is offensive and directed to a user, which fails to comply with wikinews ettiquette.

If you are unable to make constructive comments, don't make any. If you have a problem with individual users, go through the dispute system instead of making offensive and disrespectful comments. I don't understand why I need to tell you this as I am sure you are well aware of the proper procedures. I welcome your return to wikinews. How about writing some articles? --vonbergm 01:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't "need" to tell me anything, I remind you. The usage of a possessive pronoun and the intentional quotation of Neutralizer is an intentional effect. Your final point of censorship policy is that my argument is wrong; on the contrary, I never said I was in compliance with WN:E. In fact, I immediately put myself on WN:ALERT for violation of WN:E because of my knowledge of it. We don't disagree there.

I've been quite unhappy with the situation with Neutralizer, and I am finally fed up with how he is tollerated (albiet with the occasional block). 9 months of site disruption is grounds for a ban. 9 months of refusal to follow policy is grounds for a ban. 9 months of inability to collaborate at the very least requires a stern warning that a wiki follows a central core of understanding; that all users must be willing to collaborate or they are simply a wrench in the gears of the project.

I realise you are dissapointed in me. I fear that it doesn't matter; that guerilla war tactics will go unnoticed instead of eliminated by way of dicipline and mediation.

Why hasn't Neutralizer persued mediation with me? Why does he only seek administrative action? This is what I'm talking about. Doesn't anyone notice? irid:t 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

And what constructive element do you see in that "intentional effect"? Also, you argued that Brian was right to abuse Neutralizer based on no-censorship policy, and I still object. And if you wish to add that it was inconsistent in itself - so be it. Right now your edits over the last weeks have the effect to put you on the same level that you critisize in Neutralizer. No effort to collaborate on writing news -- the only collaboration that I see from you is aimed at provoking Neutralier. You have failed to initiate the dispute resulution procedures with Neutralizer but instead chose to resort to abusive language to vent whatever issues you have with him. I can't believe that now you question why Neutralizer has not persued mediation with you. Of course this is a valid question (assuming you were actually editing aticles and ran into problems with Neutralizer), but you are not in any position to ask it! --vonbergm 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder

There seems to be concerns about you accusing International of possibly being a sock puppet. I can understand your frustration with certain users on this site at the moment and would like to urge you to consider some form of dispute resolution. If you require mediation, I would be prepared to assist if needs be. Failing that, the arbitration committee is available - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 04:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would, but I have no current dispute with Neutralizer other than the behavior that several other DRs have failed to resolve. Just ask the people who've tried. I don't intend on raising an ArbCom case until I've gone through DR completely. irid:t 16:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Citing MrM as someone who "has tried" DR seems a little out of place, especially in response to a suggestion by Cartman02au. --vonbergm 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

He (MrM) has tried. I have tried. Everyone has tried. Neutralizer refuses to collaborate and if he is not refusing, then he is not trying. Jason Safoutin 18:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You are joking, you really do I hope? international 19:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not devolve into a war here, please. MrM has tried dispute resolution with Neutralizer. Others have also tried to have dispute resolutions with MrM. I have yet to see it be really successful. The fact of the matter is that people have tried. It doesn't work. Still, I have tried once with Neutralizer, and he hasn't yet at all with me. (other than pouring me some tea, which was in good spirit, but hardly DR) irid:t 20:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Where are you??

Where are you? Are you still around or did you leave us? Let me know. hope to see you soon :-/ Jason Safoutin 01:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)