Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/Neutrality

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neutrality[edit]

Support[edit]

  • Support 12.75.139.231 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • —No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support-- Neutrality's contributions to many discussions show him to be unbiased, wise, and cool as a cucumber. Ashibaka tlk 23:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Very much so. — Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 01:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. 172 03:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Endorse. func(talk) 00:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Shorne 04:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Stan 05:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutrality has earned my endorsement. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 05:10, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tannin 08:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. El_C 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. JFW | T@lk 17:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Josiah 22:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Comment- Josiah is a likely sockpuppet of MPerel. Pitchka
um, and what exactly warrants such a ridiculous accusation? --MPerel 09:08, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 02:33, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Sarge Baldy 20:20, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support GeneralPatton 03:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Voters should note that some of the (ahem) flakier registered users appear to be mounting a campaign against Neutrality, hence some of the comments below. -- ChrisO 21:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I am assuming you're including me as one of the flakes. Have you ever wondered why so many people have bad things to say about this fellow? He whines and complains as the perpetual victim on his user page about people doing this and saying that against him! People have bad things to say about this guy because of his bad behavior. But you can label us as flakes because we have different beliefs or opinions than you that's fine with me. If people don't think like you they are flakes or nuts or weird or crazy or sick or stupid or dumb right? Intolerance has been going on since the dawn of mankind. Pitchka 03:22, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) Note: Neutrality reverted my comment immediately after I posted this! Look below people were allowed to make comments in the Oppose category!!! See what I mean Neutrality should never have been allowed to be an admin. I rest my case. Pitchka 03:34, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) The Flake
ChrisO: "...registered users appear to be mounting a campaign against Neutrality,..."-Campaigning in an election? How unreasonable. Pitchka: "Note: Neutrality reverted my comment immediately after I posted this!"- Pitchka is right. Supporters' comments can be replied to if opposers' comments can. And people have been doing so, for example in "Neutrality"'s opposers' section. People have a right to information about a candidate in an election, (If this is one), so they can then judge whether to vote for the candidate.WikiUser 19:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  • Strong Oppose After returing to this site for the first time since February, I came across this so-called "Neutrality" user and this project page through the Recent changes feature... Without bothering to state his reasoning, "Neutrality" reverted the addition of the funeral for a major African American cultural icon. (I am wondering if there is a racial motive for this; it seems as if Wikipedia users only post stories that concern its largely middle- to upper-class white American readership, as opposed to representing a variety of stories of interest to a diverse range of classes, national origins, racial backgrounds, etc.) Revert warriors must not be given positions of authority on Wikipedia. Wenteng 04:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is about whether a notice about the rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard's funeral should be made the top item on the "In the News" template, three days after his death was already reported on the template. Numerous editors seem to have thought it was inappropriate but Wenteng keeps reverting it (as of this posting, Neutrality has reverted it a total of one time compared to Wenteng's four times).--Fastfission 04:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not even qualified as an admin, yet alone an arbitrator. - Xed 19:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Um, you know he is an admin, right? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 20:07, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • I don't recognise his adminship. There were irregularities in his election. - Xed 20:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • What are these? I may withdraw my support if said irregularities point to a lack of integrity. Shorne 03:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Admins need 80% of the vote. Neutrality didn't get this. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Neutrality. Raul forged a number of 83%. In previous votes for adminship (I think he only got in the 2nd or 3rd time he was nominated), Neutrality repeatedly attempted to have opposing votes disbarred. Not really the kind of person suited to being an arbitrator - Xed 09:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • I just re-read the transcript at the link provided above, and it does not reflect poorly on Neutrality at all. If anyone's actions were questionable, it would have been the folks conducting the vote, because Neutrality was not yet an Admin at the time. In any case, the logistics of that vote is all water under the bridge, as Neutrality has repeatedly proven himself to be a worthy Administrator. But don't take my word for it - I encourage voters to look at the edit history of Neutrality and compare it to the edit history of Xed, and judge for yourself. Be sure to click the "Next (500)" button a few times to get the full picture. --DV 09:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • Xed, the notion that Raul "forged" anything or that Neutrality is not wholly fit to be an admin is nothing short of RIDICULOUS. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 11:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. His username is the antithesis of his actions. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 06:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your opposing me is a badge of honor. I'm pleased you disendorsed me—surely I am not as qualified as the other users you disendorsed (Grunt, etc)? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 17:37, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Seconded. I hope for a disendorsement for Eequor as well. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Damn, too late. I've been endorsed! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I see you endorsed Lir. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 04:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Cribcage 17:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Sjc 08:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
May I ask why? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 01:23, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Neutrality is, of course, anything but. See "Neutrality" at work: supporting breaking rules and playing on a POV pushing team. HistoryBuffEr 01:22, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
  • Oppose Does not live up to the name! --Rebroad 12:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose LegCircus 15:30, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. (Kept this as short as I can.) He's given me unnecessary hassle when I'm trying
to use the site and I think he'll do it to others. Probably driving new people from the site, and causing people distress, and no one will know this is happening. I say causing distress because we all know that people don't like being discriminated against on notice boards and that they get really stressed by such abuse.
He mis-uses his position as an admin and I think he'll do real harm as an arbitrator. I thought he was just the sort of person who shouldn't be an admin. I voted against him and it seems clear to me since, that he's targetted me.
He blocked me on 13th Nov 04 for a month with no justification. He broke the Blocking Policy that says admins must put a warning on the user's talk page first and a notice telling them why they've been blocked after. He didn't do either. I just saw this as I edited:
"Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Neutrality.
The reason given is this:Maliciously acting in bad faith to disrupt Wikipedia"
He's made this nonsense up and he had no grounds to block me. A few days later, when I asked ,another admin un-bocked me. The next day I edited for the first time, a couple of notes about arbcom election propsals, and he blocked me again. Broke the Blocking Policy again as above and this time it was:
"20:25, 26 Nov 2004 Neutrality blocked WikiUser (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of infinite (Legal threats, see http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-November/032220.html.) "
Needless to say I made no legal threats and I doubt if the Wikipedia mailing list is covered by the site rules anyway. (Anyone can join and use a mailing list if they've hgot an e-mail address.)
Mirv un-blocked me: "20:50, 26 Nov 2004 Mirv unblocked WikiUser (that is not a legal threat, but a complaint. In any case, legal threats are not a valid reason for blocking).
Either he doesn't know the rules, isn't interested in learning them, or he's deliberately breaking them. Whichever, he shouldn't be an admin/arbcom.
I think he enjoys blocking people for the sake of it. The Wikipedia:Block log shows that he blocks people longer than others and for less "misconduct". He often blocks for "indefinite" and "infinite". The fact that he blocked me for so long, and for more than he does others, too, shows I think, the misuse/grudge I was on about above.
He has some un-acceptable bad habits. Some I've seen are:
Deleting whole paragraphs by other people, including in contentious circumstances, and marking them minor edits.
Changing the meaning of a sentence and marking it a minor edit.
Deleting and moving other people's posts even when they're part of complaint procedures.
Taking control of people's talk pages using the same abusive methods.
Reverting without explanation ignoring the edits others have done in-between.
Reverting a page and marking it minor edit.
Calling perfectly reasonable people trolls when he doesn't like their views or them.
Lying: he's had on his user page for ages that Rex071404 vandalised that page. If you check
the history you'll see that all he did was make a polite request (28th July 04). And check out Neutrality's idea of reasonable discussion in the subsequent postings on his talk page at that time.
Often ignores people's enquiries complaints they put on his talk page. Also archives them straight away.
If something shows him in a bad light he deletes it while leaving everything else that was there on.
His candidate submission shows that he'll be too bureaucratic-can you understand what he's on about?. He's too keen on calling people vandals, trolls for no reason, deleting pushing around, and driving people away from the Wikipedia. His name will annoy and confuse, especially new readers who may have broken a rule without realising it. (From log-in page:"Avoid usernames that are ... confusing.")
He's high handed, can't understand how to judge on the facts rather than his personal opinions, rough on people he's supposed to help, but obsequious to anyone "above" him -arbcom board etc. Do you want this as arbcom behaviour?:
"Congratulations, moron. You've just been infinitely blocked. Have a nice day. Neutrality (hopefully!) 02:43, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Is that nice? Please don't stoop to the level of this user. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Punk1"
And on his user page: "Please do not annoy me."
I'll put in the example source links when I can.WikiUser 21:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd like people to know that is is the same user who made these posts to the mailing list: [1][2]. Voters may also want to check this user's contribs, as he has a long history of trolling and vandalizing. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 23:21, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • So? What's wrong with those posts then? Except that they tell people about your actions on the Wiki, posted in the interests of all users. You think they're wrong simply because they don't praise you. - "Neutrality" also called it vandalism and threatened to ban me immediately just for pointing out (to other users) links to his admin election page and the arbitration case he did against Rex071404. Why's he so ashamed of them?
He calls everyone who has different views from him or who he doesn't like trolls and vandals. Including people who do perfectly innocuous edits, and drives people away from the wiki.
"...as he has a long history of trolling and vandalizing. " That's not true (I've written things he does not like) and I aim to file an arbitration complaint against him for this sort of abuse. I already asked him, (he's an admin), when he flamed my talk page:
"Can you tell me how to proceed with taking action against your abuse of me here? For example what is the next step? Seeking mediation? Or do I go straight to a Request For Arbitration?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiUser
-but he ignored my request as he so often does-check his history- when people put such requests on his talk page. People like him don't want to do the duties of admins or arbtrators-then they shouldn't stand.
I still want to know ...and I put it where if anyone is actually organising this "election" they would see it... why only "Neutrality" out of all the candidates can remove oppose comments posted against him, and control this page? (And it doesn't show on the main history, so many people wouldn't know he did it.) This "election" belong to him? Is he going to be allowed to trash the whole Wiki in such a way if he gets in?
If it wasn't for Mirv: "20:29, 4 Dec 2004 Mirv (restoring WikiUser's comments. Removing opposition from one's own candidacy is Not Done.)" http://Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements/Neutrality&action=history + -thanks Mirv- it would still be deleted. (+How can "Neutrality" be an arbitrator when he doesn't know that?)WikiUser 16:04, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


  • Strongly oppose in light of recent actions by this user. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 20:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose I strongly oppose Neutrality for anymore advancement or "power" he thinks that he runs this place already. I was contributing a lot to two lists of peoples Pro-Choice and Pro-Life and it was getting a lot of contributions from like minded people who are interested in this subject matter. There are a lot of people who don't like the list pages in general and then there are the ones like Neutrality who don't like certain subject matters for political reasons. He didn't like the Pro-Life list and would change the whole article and list to a re-direct page even after many people contributed to it. He wouldn't leave it alone. He didn't touch the Pro-Choice page and list, just the Pro-Life page, we can all see where his bias lies.

I and others got into a revert war on this page and he would not talk it over or anything, it was his way or nothing. Literally nothing! After the page was split because the list became so big Neutrality didn't like it so he and his "buddies" voted to delete both the list of pro-life and pro-choice supporters! But everyone knew he wanted to get rid of the pro-life list at all cost. This was proved when the Pro-Choice list was restarted sometime later and there were just a few votes to erase it and Neutrality had no problem with that list and didn't even bother voting either way and neither did his buddies many of them can bee seen on the above Supporters list!

If you cross this Neutrality he will get even with you. He seems to have problems. Pitchka 02:18, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements/Neutrality&oldid=864783345"