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@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@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&pag... but you've been disruptive in an entirely independent
way on the
Turkish Wikipedia: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullan%C3%BDc%C3%BD:Rgulerdem Where you have also been repeatedly blocked: http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%96zel:Log&type=block&p...
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@yahoo.com
wrote:
Regarding the [[WP:OURS]] proposal; there are some good suggestions in it, I believe:
- [[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?
- It is not complete but just a quick suggestion
from
my point of view. Can be and need to be modified.
- 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.
- 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.
- It provides a dynamic measure for popularity of
admins.
- It aims to educate new or old users, rather
than
irritate them.
- It diagnose and tries to prevent the system
from
possible problems before they arise (by
constructing
study groups, etc., for example).
- 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...
or its place suddenly became a problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff...
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_...
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@gmail.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia
To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@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
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...
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@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@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@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