[WikiEN-l] Time to start discussing solutions?

Sun Jun 4 10:45:41 UTC 2006

Dear Scott,

What is your panic for? My account is blocked, yes!
This is the third time you are repeating the same
thing on this list. I disclosed that at the beginning
of the proposal too. I hope people smart enough here
to see that you are trying to denounce the proposal by
mud-throwing at me. I expect you will continue doing
so to distract the attention of the community from the
proposal itself. I had issues with some admins,
blocked at the end and '''that is why I know the
admin-abuse problem by heart'''. I am trying to make
some structural suggestions so that new comers do not
live through the same difficulties I had here. Isn't
that really understandable to you? If you would like
to talk about the issue, focus on the proposal and
find some mistakes in it, that would be more
persuasive that I am doing bad and be more useful to
correct it.

I am so sorry to say that you are not an exemplary
editor in my sight from whom I can take some advise,
and maybe in the sight of a few other users you are
messing up around. I do not want to waste my time to
provide links to show what kind of editor you are.
(There are already two links in my previous message,
accidentally.)

Maybe I should just say this: It is no good to watch
each and every step of a fellow editor and try to
create a negative atmosphere around him by distorting
the facts, slandering, using your experience and
naivety of the new users in a negative manner, biting
the new users, trying to spoil any positive relation
the user may have by secretly talking to others,
organizing other users against a fellow editor etc. It
is not also good to spoil and ruin the articles and
proposals by starting edit-wars, reverting without
discussion, tag'ing the articles at which you have no
other contributions or idea about without any
explanation, etc. I cannot see the basis for your
motivation and do not like to describe it in terms of
phycology for the sake of kindness. I just want to let
you know that those are the behaviors that damage the
community spirit of Wikipedia.

I want you not answer it to me but ask this question
yourself: What will I gain from ruining another
proposal ([[WP:OURS]]) as I did in the case of
[[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]? Is mud-throwing ethical and
can considered among the behaviors of a gentleman?
Should I stop this poor behavior? If you have
difficulty to find an answer please consult your
parents for your childish behavior.

If you remember, I told you 'bye' far ago. When I say
it, I really meant that. Let me see if I can make
myself more clearer this time: Bye again...

Resid

>From: "Scott Stevenson" <wikinetscott at gmail.com>
>Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
>To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Time to start discussing
solutions?
>Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:15:08 +0200
>
>Resid Gulerdem you are a PERMANENTLY BLOCKED EDITOR
who has not only
>been disruptive on English Wikipedia :
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem with
corresponding
>extensive block log:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Rgulerdem
>but you've been disruptive in an entirely independent
way on the
>Turkish Wikipedia:
>http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullanýcý:Rgulerdem
>Where you have also been repeatedly blocked:
>http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Özel:Log&type=block&page=Kullanýcý:Rgulerdem
>
>For you to be discussing policy at this point is
ridiculous. You
>should STEP AWAY from the project for at minimum 1
YEAR and then come
>back to try and contribute as at this point it is
surely likely that
>you'll once again be disruptive when trying to
formulate any sort of a
>"policy" like [[WP:OURS]] through demonstrating the
same types of
>disruptive editor behaviour you've already repeatedly
demonstrated
>(involving WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, and
WP:CIV).
>
>-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
>
>On 6/4/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> > Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some
> > good suggestions in it, I believe:
> >
> > 1. [[WP:OURS]] is aiming to start a discussion
about
> > the '''solution''' to the main problem: admin-user
> > relations. Isn't it time to start talking about
> > solutions? How far are we going to discuss diffent
> > versions of the same problem?
> >
> > 2. It is not complete but just a quick suggestion
from
> > my point of view. Can be and need to be modified.
> >
> > 3. Existence of some rejected proposals cannot
imply
> > that this one will follow the same path, can it?
It is
> > early to make a decision at this stage before
> > discussing the proposal.
> >
> > 3. The good thing about the proposal is, it does
not
> > devaluate Wikigods and Wikigoddess and does not
> > attempt to take their eternal status back. It does
not
> > propose radical changes but maybe a different look
and
> > acceptable variations of the current
> > infrastructure. It just provides a windshield for
> > ordinary users against strong, irresistible blows
of
> > Wikigod(des)s.
> >
> > 4. It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of
> > admins.
> >
> > 5. It aims to educate new or old users, rather
than
> > irritate them.
> >
> > 6. It diagnose and tries to prevent the system
from
> > possible problems before they arise (by
constructing
> > study groups, etc., for example).
> >
> > 7. As discussed by some users, both community and
> > encyclopedia are crucial components for Wikipedia.
The
> > problems are caused by the fact that '''the
bridges
> > between these two components are not efficient'''.
> > [[WP:OURS]] is a simple but sincere attempt to
> > strengthen, enhance and improve the efficiency of
> > these bridges. I hope it gets enough attention.
> >
> > Regarding Wikiethics discussion:
> >
> > If you participated in Wikiethics discussion and
now
> > referring to that approval poll you are,
> > unfortunately, distorting the facts. If you are
new to
> > that discussion, I would recommend you to review
the
> > comments carefully.
> >
> > Let me summarize what has happened quickly: A
user,
> > who dislike the proposal, unilaterally started the
> > approval poll at a very early stage of the
proposal. I
> > then started another poll right after that to ask
the
> > community if an approval poll is needed at that
stage.
> > I, myself as the main proposer, haven't thought
that
> > the proposal is ready for putting to a vote. Then
the
> > poll I started to ask what people think about the
> > timing of an approval poll vandalized many times:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=next&oldid=44384387
> > or its place suddenly became a problem:
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=44819924&oldid=44818149
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff=45015662&oldid=45014949
> > Nevertheless, the editors could have a chance to
vote
> > on the poll I started: 13 out of 17 said that it
is
> > not needed. So, the approval poll itself was not
valid
> > by the community consensus. Moveover if you can
check
> > the votes on the approval poll itself, some people
are
> > saying that the approval poll is not reasonable at
> > that stage. These editors did not vote on the poll
I
> > started,
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Do_we_need_a_poll_at_this_stage_Poll_31_April_2006
> > simply because it was not available to them. So
the
> > numbers you reported does not reflect the case as
is.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Resid
> >
> >
> > >From: "Stephen Bain" <stephen.bain at gmail.com>
> > >Reply-To: English Wikipedia
<wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > >To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at wikipedia.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] status qou vs reform
> > >Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 11:33:48 +1000
> > >
> > >On 6/3/06, Resid Gulerdem
<resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >    I think one should not expect any action,
in
> > > > general, from the people who are well fed by
the
> > > > current structure which makes them feel
superior,
> > make
> > > > any attempt towards a bit of change...
> > >
> > >There must be an awfully large number of people
who
> > are content with
> > >the current structure, given that the general
> > approval poll on your
> > >Wikiethics proposal failed 3 to 38 [1]. Polls are
> > evil, of course, and
> > >not binding, but that level of rejection is
fairly
> > comprehensive, and
> > >came from all sectors of the community. I would
> > imagine that "OURS",
> > >if it were ever formulated into a proposal, would
> > receive a similar
> > >amount of opposition for similar reasons.
> > >
> > >There are dozens of similar proposals put up
every
> > year. If any of
> > >them actually received support from the
community,
> > they would be
> > >successful. Admins are a miniscule 0.06% of
> > registered users - even if
> > >we always voted as a bloc, there is no way we
could
> > overrule a true
> > >community movement.
> > >
> > >[1]
> >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics/Archive/Approval_Poll_31_April_2006
> > >
> > >--
> > >Stephen Bain
> > >stephen.bain at gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> >
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 