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#Resp...]). 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_v...]). 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...]) 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#Resp...] 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#Comm...) and Dr. Gulerdem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Rgulerdem#Resp...).
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
Message: 6 Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:58:03 -0600 From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request - nothing more to similar IP's To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Cc: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Message-ID: BB929BAC-CEFD-4EEA-A187-59769FB52E77@ctelco.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Anyone who is not very disruptive is welcome to edit Wikipedia. Perhaps you could explain more about this matter to us. I may be the very sysop who unblocks you, but claiming you did not have three accounts will not wash.
Fred
On May 26, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
No there is nothing more to that. I am afraid you are not looking at the case clearly. The accusations mentioned on the check user page are not legitimate and not serious. All are answered on that page. I am expecting a sysop unblock me from editing sooner than later. Thank you. Ceyda.
Message: 9 Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:06:00 -0600 From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Cc: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Message-ID: 1629A058-13A7-4B46-A829-B9C3B9414DFA@ctelco.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
There is more to it than that.
Fred
On May 26, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Hi,
I wonder how you can say, they are the same user, when all you can check is that they are using the same IP-address.
best regards
Raphael
Fred Bauder wrote:
These check out as being the same user. Essjay also checked this. I doublechecked.
Fred
On May 26, 2006, at 4:32 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
Hi, I am fairly new user to Wikipedia with username [[User:Light&Truth]]. Dr. Gulerdem (with username [[User:Rgulerdem]]) informed me and my friend know about Wikipedia. We liked the philosophy behind the project. Unfortunately at a very early stage of our experience in Wikipedia, we face to an inappropriate accusation. Someone claimed that we (me and my partner [[User:Mokotok]]) are different names for Rgulerdem. It is not true. I tried to explain it on the check user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/ Rgulerdem. I think the problem is coming from the fact that we are all living at the same university housing complex and using the same IP's randomly. I understand that check user made his decision based on that. I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as much as I can. I would like to someone please correct this mistake because we are not the same person and this unfair accusation bothers me a great deal. Thank you in advance. Ceyda ([[Light&Truth]])
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
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
Message: 6 Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:58:03 -0600 From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock Request - nothing more to similar IP's To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Cc: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Message-ID: BB929BAC-CEFD-4EEA-A187-59769FB52E77@ctelco.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Anyone who is not very disruptive is welcome to edit Wikipedia. Perhaps you could explain more about this matter to us. I may be the very sysop who unblocks you, but claiming you did not have three accounts will not wash.
Fred
On May 26, 2006, at 12:47 PM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
No there is nothing more to that. I am afraid you are not looking at the case clearly. The accusations mentioned on the check user page
are not
legitimate and not serious. All are answered on that page. I am expecting a sysop unblock me from editing sooner than later. Thank you. Ceyda.
Message: 9 Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:06:00 -0600 From: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Unblock request To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Cc: Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net Message-ID: 1629A058-13A7-4B46-A829-B9C3B9414DFA@ctelco.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
There is more to it than that.
Fred
On May 26, 2006, at 9:51 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
Hi,
I wonder how you can say, they are the same user, when all you can check is that they are using the same IP-address.
best regards
Raphael
Fred Bauder wrote:
These check out as being the same user. Essjay also checked
this. I
doublechecked.
Fred
On May 26, 2006, at 4:32 AM, Ceyda Lacin wrote:
Hi, I am fairly new user to Wikipedia with username [[User:Light&Truth]]. Dr. Gulerdem (with username [[User:Rgulerdem]]) informed me and my friend know about Wikipedia. We liked the philosophy behind the project. Unfortunately at a very early stage of our experience in Wikipedia, we face
to an
inappropriate accusation. Someone claimed that we (me and my partner [[User:Mokotok]]) are different names for Rgulerdem. It is not true. I tried to explain it on the check user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/ Rgulerdem. I think the problem is coming from the fact that we are all living at the same university housing complex and using the same IP's
randomly. I
understand that check user made his decision based on that. I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia as
much as I
can. I would like to someone please correct this mistake because we are not the same person and this unfair accusation bothers me a great deal. Thank you in advance. Ceyda ([[Light&Truth]])
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
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
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http:// search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Inciden...
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
On May 27, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
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.
No. It's not. The question, when deciding on *Wikipedia policy* is the position of the majority *of established Wikipedians* - Not the position of the majority of anyone, previously involved with Wikipedia or not. Bringing in friends who have no previous association with Wikipedia to attempt to sway the outcome of a dispute is frowned upon, and a just reason for being escorted out the door.
While encouraging your friends to join Wikipedia is fine, and even encouraged, have the courtesy and sense to ask such friends to *contribute to Wikipedia* for a while *before* getting into policy (or for that matter, content) disputes that the person who told them about Wikipedia was already involved in. This is not too hard, this is not unfair. This is simple courtesy and respect for the community.
Jesse Weinstein