Rgulerdems main accusation has been to create sock-puppets
to give the wrong impression, that his position is the
position of the majority, respectively to circumvent the 3RR.
Now, if Rgulerdem did not create sock-puppets, but instead
invited other editors, who happen to share his position,
the accusations are null and void.
best regards
--
Raphael
Fred Bauder wrote:
A small group of people who act like one person may be
treated as one
person.
Fred
On May 27, 2006, at 7:02 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
> I will try to explain as briefly as possible:
>
> Please check the following links to see the case clearly:
> * [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]
> * [[Fethullah Gulen]]
> * [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem]
>
> Mr. Gulerdem informed me about Wikipedia. I liked it. He has solid
> background about [[Fethullah Gulen]] movement (besides many others I
> have to say). He told us about the article and the difficulties he
> has been facing to in that article. I am not an expert on the issue
> but I knew the movement through him and I have read quite a few
> books about Mr. Gulen and the movement. I decided to contribute to
> the article, so did my friend Hakan ([[User:Mokotok]]). I also tried
> to make some corrections and modifications on some other articles.
>
> Dr. Gulerdem mentioned about some structural problems he realized on
> Wikipedia and his trial for a proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]]. We
> quickly saw that there are (at least two [[User:Netscott]] and
> [[User:Azate]]) users sound like they have strong emotional tensity
> towards Mr. Gulerdem. As far as I understood a few people 'without
> much ethical concerns' or more kindly with some ideological or
> cultural (you can say religious if you like to) hatred against him,
> together pushed him into some trouble. He faced to an unjustified
> indefinite block by sysop [[User: Cyde]] with the pretext of 'user
> does not get it' while he was blocked already. All these discussions
> took place around the proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] which seems
> to be a brilliant idea to me. Since the same sysop blocked him again
> indefinitely right after a check user case is filled, I have no
> doubt in mind that there are some clear structural problems in
> Wikipedia. (You can see the evidence of all these on
> [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem]).
> He did not even waited for the decision from the check user. Because
> Mr. Gulerdem was unblocked first time form indefinite block under
> some conditions, I think [[User:Netscott]] and [[User:Azate]] tried
> really hard to push him into the same violations so that they can
> ask for reinstatement of the indefinite block
> ([
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem]).
> That is the main picture in my mind.
>
> Because Dr. Gulerdem was careful this time and we were helping him
> to naturalize the article the last chance on their part was filing a
> check user case to claim that he is using sockpuppets to reinstate
> his indefinite block. They played it professionally and got what
> they want. Although we did not violate Wikipedia rules, it is
> strange that we all blocked for being suckpuppets which is in fact
> not a violation except under some certain situations which are not
> applicable to our case.
>
> What are these guys doing on that Gulen article:
>
> [[User:Azate]]'s edits are explained by Dr. Gulerdem at
> ([
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem#Response]).
> A check user request is filed about [[User:Azate]] and his earlier
> accounts and IP's. He claim otherwise but it seems to be that he has
> been editing on that article for a long time. The request was also
> asking about any possible relation between these two users but it
> was not investigated properly. Could you please do a favor to me and
> quickly check these users. I believe I have the right to learn that
> and it will be helpful to determine what is really happening.
> (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RFCU#User:_Azate). Please see my
> critics about [[User:Azate]]'s edits at
> ([
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fethullah_G%C3%BClen/
> Archive_2#Azate.27s_vandalism_and_violation_of_WP:OWN]).
> Other sections of this talk page might give you a better idea about
> who is doing what on that article.
>
> [[User:Netscott]] is making nonsense edits
> ([
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fethullah_G%C3%
> BClen&diff=next&oldid=53457962])
> over exaggerating and agitating with a hope of possible violation on
> the part of Mr. Gulerdem. He is highlighting a link which is
> irrelevant to the article. Although he has no any significant
> contribution to the article other than agitation, he is very active
> in tag'ing the article with NOPV. Please not that they never
> provided a reason
> to tag the article with NPOV; that is illogical and not acceptable.
> I should also add that
> [[User:Azate]] was 'tag'ing the article while he was revising the
> article from head to toe as can easily be seen from the history of
> the main article. I hope this gives some insight
> about [[User:Netscott]]'s and [[User:Azatte]]'s motivations (The
> links are provided at
> [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem#Response]
> you can also look at the history of the Gulen's talk page to see the
> quality of Netscott's edits). I cannot see how he could escape from
> a block
> that is applied to two others in the same conflict
> [
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN3#User:Netscott] (It should not
> be surprising to see the support of the same sysop at this link). I
> have an impression that [[User:Netscott]] is mainly contributing
> Islam related articles and I have to say that he likes to look at
> the issues from a negative perspective which cause some problems
> with other editors. One can check this and see many examples of it
> from his talk page.
>
> Where am I in this picture? I and Hakan found ourselves in the
> middle of this mess, ideological hatred towards an editor (who we
> know personally) and 'push him to an indefinite block' game. A check
> user case is filled for us with the accusation of sockpoppetry, and
> the decision was incorrect. If you please check the accusations,
> there is no a single serious statements made among those
> accusations. In spite of this, they are already answered by Hakan
> (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem#Comments_Light.26Truth_and_Mokotok)
> and Dr. Gulerdem
> (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/
> Rgulerdem#Response).
>
> Needless to say that I can survive without Wikipedia. I can also
> change my name to edit further with a different name if I need and
> want to. But on the other hand this baseless and inappropriate
> accusation bothers me a great deal and principals always matter.
>
> Thanks for your careful analysis of the dispute and attempt for a
> just solution to the matter. If you need further explanations (I
> doubt it!) I will try to give you more insight about the problem.
>
> Ceyda Lacin
>