From: Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales -
Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:49:21 +0200
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Resid Gulerdem wrote:
The admins are only part of the community now
and
will stay like that in the future, as far as I
can
see. Are some modifications needed in your
opinion? I
believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you
could
see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this
list
recently. I think it can be useful and can be developed further. I tried to outline some
important
points which may reduce the conflicts between the admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think
it
is feasible?
I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am
unable to comment. Can
you send it to me?
I've just created the proposed policy on
[[Wikipedia:OURS]].
-- Raphael
Mr. Wales,
I was wondering if you could review the proposal [[WP:OURS]] and [[WP:ETH]]?
I would like to know also if you are aware of the discussion and weird admin actions going around this proposals recently:
Right after I posted the proposal [[WP:OURS]] to this mailing list (it includes a link to the updated version of the proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] on my old user page [[User:Rgulerdem\Wikiethics]]) someone deleted that page immediately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#User:Rgulerdem.2FWikiethics
An editor [[User:Raphael]] decided to have a copy of the updated version of [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] from my old user page to improve it further. It is also deleted right away. Lots of wikilawyering and insincerity going around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#User:Raphael1.2FWikiethics
He further formulated his version of the proposal [[WP:OURS]] after modifications, rewording, and some improvements on the main space. It is deleted too right after created without a single word on its talk page. I cannot provide a link for this because even the 'deletion discussion page' is deleted.
I hope now it is clear what may 'admin-driven death of Wikipedia' mean. With this structure and functioning it is not possible to have a health product in my opinion. As Wikipedia gets bigger one may expect this admin problem become more apparent and frustrating.
Please note that on purely technical issues the problems are smaller than the ones on the controversial issues. Many (not all) of the admins as far as I can see are some college kids mostly sitting around a computer. As a result Wikipedia is evolving very fast towards an online forum or clubhouse with an heavy ideologic bigotry and a tone on social issues determined by the instincts of some computer operators and programmers playing encyclopedist. This does not make the Wikipedia a reliable source of information. Lynching editors according to their background that their names may imply does not bring any honor to Wikipedia.
I would appreciate if you could give some feedback about these concerns. Please again consider those as friendly and sincere concerns from a user who likes the Wikipedia be successful. I am just pointing out the danger which will get Wikipedia down tomorrow if not today. I have some further ideas similar to [[WP:Wikiethics]] and [[WP:OURS]] towards constructing a better structure but an administrative will is necessary to be able to implement that. Your comments will result in either continuation or end of my Wiki experience.
Best,
Resid
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Resid, [[WP:OURS]] was speedy deleted because it fell under [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] (general criteria 5), which states as a valid reason for speedy deletion : "Pages created by banned usershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_banned_userswhile they were banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy." You are a BANNED user. Raphael Wegmann [[User:Raphael1]] acting as a proxy for you created the page [[Wikipedia:OURS]] in direct correspondance with this proposal you made on this mailing list (WP:OURS). The copy of Wikiethics stored on the user space previously accorded you was deleted because despite your banned status you were editing it via anonymous IPs starting with 216.xx.xx (as mentioned in the RFCU confirming your usage of such IPs and sockpuppets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Rgulerdem ). Due to your repetitive demonstrations of highly disruptive conduct on both the English and Turkish Wikipedias ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag... http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C3%96zel:Log&type=block&p...) and your insistence on trying to create policy on Wikipedia despite your permanently blocked status, I suspect that you will soon be blocked from even contributing to this mailing list (and rightly so).
-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
On 6/6/06, Resid Gulerdem resid_gulerdem@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales -
Admin-driven death of Wikipedia
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:49:21 +0200
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Resid Gulerdem wrote:
The admins are only part of the community now
and
will stay like that in the future, as far as I
can
see. Are some modifications needed in your
opinion? I
believe the answer is yes. I do not know if you
could
see the proposal [[WP:OURS]] I posted on this
list
recently. I think it can be useful and can be developed further. I tried to outline some
important
points which may reduce the conflicts between the admins and the users. If you saw it, do you think
it
is feasible?
I see no reference to WP:OURS in google, so I am
unable to comment. Can
you send it to me?
I've just created the proposed policy on
[[Wikipedia:OURS]].
-- Raphael
Mr. Wales,
I was wondering if you could review the proposal [[WP:OURS]] and [[WP:ETH]]?
I would like to know also if you are aware of the discussion and weird admin actions going around this proposals recently:
Right after I posted the proposal [[WP:OURS]] to this mailing list (it includes a link to the updated version of the proposal [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] on my old user page [[User:Rgulerdem\Wikiethics]]) someone deleted that page immediately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#User:Rgulerdem.2FWikiethics
An editor [[User:Raphael]] decided to have a copy of the updated version of [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] from my old user page to improve it further. It is also deleted right away. Lots of wikilawyering and insincerity going around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#User:Raphael1.2FWikiethics
He further formulated his version of the proposal [[WP:OURS]] after modifications, rewording, and some improvements on the main space. It is deleted too right after created without a single word on its talk page. I cannot provide a link for this because even the 'deletion discussion page' is deleted.
I hope now it is clear what may 'admin-driven death of Wikipedia' mean. With this structure and functioning it is not possible to have a health product in my opinion. As Wikipedia gets bigger one may expect this admin problem become more apparent and frustrating.
Please note that on purely technical issues the problems are smaller than the ones on the controversial issues. Many (not all) of the admins as far as I can see are some college kids mostly sitting around a computer. As a result Wikipedia is evolving very fast towards an online forum or clubhouse with an heavy ideologic bigotry and a tone on social issues determined by the instincts of some computer operators and programmers playing encyclopedist. This does not make the Wikipedia a reliable source of information. Lynching editors according to their background that their names may imply does not bring any honor to Wikipedia.
I would appreciate if you could give some feedback about these concerns. Please again consider those as friendly and sincere concerns from a user who likes the Wikipedia be successful. I am just pointing out the danger which will get Wikipedia down tomorrow if not today. I have some further ideas similar to [[WP:Wikiethics]] and [[WP:OURS]] towards constructing a better structure but an administrative will is necessary to be able to implement that. Your comments will result in either continuation or end of my Wiki experience.
Best,
Resid
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
On 6/6/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Resid, [[WP:OURS]] was speedy deleted because it fell under [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] (general criteria 5), which states as a valid reason for speedy deletion : "Pages created by banned usershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_banned_userswhile they were banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy." You are a
This is a much better reason for deleting something than concerns about copyright.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/6/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Resid, [[WP:OURS]] was speedy deleted because it fell under [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] (general criteria 5), which states as a valid reason for speedy deletion : "Pages created by banned usershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_banned_userswhile they were banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy." You are a
This is a much better reason for deleting something than concerns about copyright.
It would be a better reason, if it wouldn't be just plain wrong. Neither [[User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]] nor [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] has been created by banned users while they were banned.
Netscott claims, that there had been some edits on [[User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]] from an IP-address he alleges to be Rgulerdems. IIRC I have made a copy of that page to [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] before Rgulerdem even had been banned.
Anyway, even if Netscotts allegations are true, neither [[User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]] nor [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] has been created by banned users while they were banned.
best regards
My allegations? Raphael Wegmann you're so quick to tell a half truth. This MfD started by [[User:Metros232]] which you were pefectly aware of illustrates this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rgulerde... Move along now and cease from acting as a proxy for a banned user.
-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
On 6/6/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/6/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Resid, [[WP:OURS]] was speedy deleted because it fell under [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] (general criteria 5), which states as a
valid
reason for speedy deletion : "Pages created by banned usershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_banned_userswhile they were banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy." You
are a
This is a much better reason for deleting something than concerns about copyright.
It would be a better reason, if it wouldn't be just plain wrong. Neither [[User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]] nor [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] has been created by banned users while they were banned.
Netscott claims, that there had been some edits on [[User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]] from an IP-address he alleges to be Rgulerdems. IIRC I have made a copy of that page to [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] before Rgulerdem even had been banned.
Anyway, even if Netscotts allegations are true, neither [[User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]] nor [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] has been created by banned users while they were banned.
best regards
Raphael _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Scott Stevenson wrote:
On 6/6/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/6/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Resid, [[WP:OURS]] was speedy deleted because it fell under [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] (general criteria 5), which states as a valid reason for speedy deletion : "Pages created by banned usershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_banned_userswhile they were banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy."
This is a much better reason for deleting something than concerns about copyright.
It would be a better reason, if it wouldn't be just plain wrong. Neither [[User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]] nor [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] has been created by banned users while they were banned.
Netscott claims, that there had been some edits on [[User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]] from an IP-address he alleges to be Rgulerdems. IIRC I have made a copy of that page to [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] before Rgulerdem even had been banned.
Anyway, even if Netscotts allegations are true, neither [[User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]] nor [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] has been created by banned users while they were banned.
My allegations? Raphael Wegmann you're so quick to tell a half truth.
Am I? Actually I was referring to your last email, when I called them your allegations. How could I know, that you are just "reporting" an allegation by Metros232, when you don't even mention his name?
This MfD started by [[User:Metros232]] which you were pefectly aware of illustrates this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rgulerde...
What about that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metros232&diff=prev&...
I'd say, that we shouldn't hide the motives for your actions either: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff...
It seems rather odd to me, that you now claim, that you are not engaged in this "remove all traces from now indef-banned Rgulerdem" agitation. Actually you have repeated yourself so many times, that I almost believe to be a disruptive proxy myself.
Move along now and cease from acting as a proxy for a banned user.
Please stop accusing me of "acting as a proxy". I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality and the work I've put in WP:OURS before I've created that page.
<snip>
Actually you have repeated yourself so many times, that I almost believe to
be a disruptive proxy myself. </snip>
Now you are talking sense!
<snip> I'd say, that we shouldn't hide the motives for your actions either: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff... </snip>
Who's hiding anything? That diff is illustrative of the very first inkling of Resid Gulerdem's long record of disruption on the project.
You must realize that apart from Resid Gulerdem's history of disruptiveness wheverever he goes on Wikipedia (English and Turkish WP) and how his disruption made a Wikipedia contributor in very good standing leave the project [[User:Metta Bubble]], the insulting comments that he's made towards myself (calling me a vandal, troublemaker, etc.) has me somewhat motivated to see his FULL departure from Wikipedia. Now with you acting as a proxy for him to further his ends and with your own disruptiveness (making a list of admins who've committed "Persecution of Muslims"?) I am beginning to think that you are following his path towards leaving the project. I would recommend that you refrain from continuing to act as a proxy on his behalf and that you return to being a positive contributor for the Encyclopedia before the community's patience is exhausted.
Sincerely, -Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
On 6/6/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Scott Stevenson wrote:
On 6/6/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/6/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Resid, [[WP:OURS]] was speedy deleted because it fell under [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] (general criteria 5), which states as a valid reason for speedy deletion : "Pages created by banned users<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users
while
they were banned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Banning_policy."
This is a much better reason for deleting something than concerns about copyright.
It would be a better reason, if it wouldn't be just plain wrong. Neither [[User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]] nor [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] has been created by banned users while they were banned.
Netscott claims, that there had been some edits on [[User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]] from an IP-address he alleges to be Rgulerdems. IIRC I have made a copy of that page to [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] before Rgulerdem even had been banned.
Anyway, even if Netscotts allegations are true, neither [[User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics]] nor [[User:Raphael1/Wikiethics]] has been created by banned users while they were banned.
My allegations? Raphael Wegmann you're so quick to tell a half truth.
Am I? Actually I was referring to your last email, when I called them your allegations. How could I know, that you are just "reporting" an allegation by Metros232, when you don't even mention his name?
This MfD started by [[User:Metros232]] which you were pefectly aware of illustrates this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rgulerde...
What about that
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Metros232&diff=prev&...
I'd say, that we shouldn't hide the motives for your actions either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics&diff...
It seems rather odd to me, that you now claim, that you are not engaged in this "remove all traces from now indef-banned Rgulerdem" agitation. Actually you have repeated yourself so many times, that I almost believe to be a disruptive proxy myself.
Move along now and cease from acting as a proxy for a banned user.
Please stop accusing me of "acting as a proxy". I consider this a personal attack, since it completely disregards my individuality and the work I've put in WP:OURS before I've created that page.
-- Raphael _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Scott Stevenson wrote: <snip/>
You must realize that apart from Resid Gulerdem's history of disruptiveness wheverever he goes on Wikipedia (English and Turkish WP) and how his disruption made a Wikipedia contributor in very good standing leave the project [[User:Metta Bubble]], the insulting comments that he's made towards myself (calling me a vandal, troublemaker, etc.) has me somewhat motivated to see his FULL departure from Wikipedia.
<snip/>
Please try to keep this personal vendetta out of Wikipedia. You are truly harming this project, if you agitate to get all of Rgulerdems contributions removed. Even if he might have insulted you, many of his contributions are valuable.
Sorry Raphael but you are wrong this isn't about a personal vendetta but moreso about an editor who was just bad for Wikipedia. Seeing [[User:Metta Bubble]] ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Metta_Bubble ) depart the project as a result of Resid Gulerdem's bad influence on Wikipedia really sealed my view that he was indeed bad. Your continued support of him really puzzles me and I really can't understand it. The only thing that makes me think you are so inclined to support him is that he like yourself supports altering the display characteristics of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons (censoring them) and you're not keen to see a supportive view go away (meaning you have personal reasons for him staying on). Such continued support is less than logical in view of Resid Gulerdem's repeated and independently natured Wikipedia violations that saw him become banned.
-Scott Stevenson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Netscott
On 6/6/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
Scott Stevenson wrote:
<snip/> > You must realize that apart from Resid Gulerdem's history of disruptiveness > wheverever he goes on Wikipedia (English and Turkish WP) and how his > disruption made a Wikipedia contributor in very good standing leave the > project [[User:Metta Bubble]], the insulting comments that he's made towards > myself (calling me a vandal, troublemaker, etc.) has me somewhat motivated > to see his FULL departure from Wikipedia. <snip/>
Please try to keep this personal vendetta out of Wikipedia. You are truly harming this project, if you agitate to get all of Rgulerdems contributions removed. Even if he might have insulted you, many of his contributions are valuable.
-- Raphael _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/6/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry Raphael but you are wrong this isn't about a personal vendetta but moreso about an editor who was just bad for Wikipedia. Seeing [[User:Metta Bubble]] ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Metta_Bubble ) depart the project as a result of Resid Gulerdem's bad influence on Wikipedia really sealed my view that he was indeed bad. Your continued support of him really puzzles me and I really can't understand it. The only thing that makes me think you are so inclined to support him is that he like yourself supports altering the display characteristics of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons (censoring them) and you're not keen to see a supportive view go away (meaning you have personal reasons for him staying on). Such continued support is less than logical in view of Resid Gulerdem's repeated and independently natured Wikipedia violations that saw him become banned.
I am worried about the apparent precedent here, that because some idea or proposal originated with a now-banned user, it must be permanently verboten as a point for ongoing discussion.
I neither agree with Resid's actions that got him banned, nor with WP:OURS, but I don't like the precedent. See other thread and thoughtcrime...
George Willaim Herbert,
While I understand your concerns about "thougthcrime" the only precedent that might exist here is that a page created by a banned user through proxy was deleted. Pages created by banned users can be speedy deleted under [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] general criteria #5. Discussion about a proposal isn't verboten (and in fact on one of the the original threads started by Resid Gulerdem there is indeed a very lively ongoing discussion). Hope that helps you to better understand this. Sincerely, -Scott Stevenson
I am worried about the apparent precedent here, that because some idea or
proposal originated with a now-banned user, it must be permanently verboten as a point for ongoing discussion.
I neither agree with Resid's actions that got him banned, nor with WP:OURS, but I don't like the precedent. See other thread and thoughtcrime...
-- -george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/6/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
George Willaim Herbert, While I understand your concerns about "thougthcrime" the only precedent that might exist here is that a page created by a banned user through proxy was deleted. Pages created by banned users can be speedy deleted under [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] general criteria #5. Discussion about a proposal isn't verboten (and in fact on one of the the original threads started by Resid Gulerdem there is indeed a very lively ongoing discussion). Hope that helps you to better understand this.
I understand the policy, but the effect is apparently to limit that discussion to Wikien-L and not on WP itself.
Is that the (big picture) right thing to do?
Would Raphael paraphrasing the whole WP:OURS page instead of just cutting and pasting it get around the current GFDL issue, or is the very existence of a WP:OURS page forbidden forever now since Resid got himself banned, requiring a retitle as well? If Raphael retitled and paraphrased/rewrote from scratch the proposal, would that still be banned in your interpretation?
Again, this commentary is NOT any kind of support for WP:OURS. I'm just uncomfortable with how the proposal's being treated at the moment.
There is no GFDL issue relative to [[WP:OURS]] that is a seperate issue having to do with a sser page that Resid Gulerdem was editing on via anon IPs despite his blocked status. [[WP:OURS]] was proposed here on the mailing list by Resid Gulerdem, shortly afterwards Raphael Wegmann posted Resid Gulerdem's policy proposal entitled Wikipedia:OURS [[WP:OURS]]. Raphael did mention adding some text to it but the fact remains that the policy was created by Resid Gulerdem so in creating the policy proposal on Wikipedia, Raphael created a page on Resid Gulerdem's behalf (he acted as his proxy). The question of what Raphael Wegmann would have to do to make the policy proposal truly his own is a bit esoteric. But naming it the same thing as what Resid Gulerdem named it and it having primarily text in it that Resid Gulerdem himself added is essentially a proxy maneuver on Wegmann's part. Any other questions?
-Scott Stevenson
On 6/6/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/06, Scott Stevenson wikinetscott@gmail.com wrote:
George Willaim Herbert, While I understand your concerns about "thougthcrime" the only precedent that might exist here is that a page created by a banned user through proxy was deleted. Pages created by banned users can be speedy deleted under [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] general criteria #5. Discussion about a proposal isn't verboten (and in fact on one of the the original threads started
by
Resid Gulerdem there is indeed a very lively ongoing discussion). Hope that helps you to better understand this.
I understand the policy, but the effect is apparently to limit that discussion to Wikien-L and not on WP itself.
Is that the (big picture) right thing to do?
Would Raphael paraphrasing the whole WP:OURS page instead of just cutting and pasting it get around the current GFDL issue, or is the very existence of a WP:OURS page forbidden forever now since Resid got himself banned, requiring a retitle as well? If Raphael retitled and paraphrased/rewrote from scratch the proposal, would that still be banned in your interpretation?
Again, this commentary is NOT any kind of support for WP:OURS. I'm just uncomfortable with how the proposal's being treated at the moment.
-- -george william herbert gherbert@retro.com / george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Scott Stevenson wrote:
There is no GFDL issue relative to [[WP:OURS]] that is a seperate issue having to do with a sser page that Resid Gulerdem was editing on via anon IPs despite his blocked status.
A separate issue, where you are as well on your mission towards Rgulerdems "FULL departure" (as you call it).
IMHO it is truly astonishing how much rejection even a policy draft in user space can create:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#User:Rgulerdem.2FWikiethics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:DRV#User:Raphael1.2FWikiethics
Scott Stevenson wrote:
George Willaim Herbert,
While I understand your concerns about "thougthcrime" the only precedent that might exist here is that a page created by a banned user through proxy was deleted. Pages created by banned users can be speedy deleted under [[WP:CSD#General_criteria]] general criteria #5. Discussion about a proposal isn't verboten (and in fact on one of the the original threads started by Resid Gulerdem there is indeed a very lively ongoing discussion). Hope that helps you to better understand this.
It is very unfortunate, that you reject my good faith gesture and continue to call me a proxy.
[[WP:OUR]] has not been a cut&paste copy of Resids email. Instead I've tried to incorporate the whole discussion, which has taken place here on this mailing list.
Scott Stevenson wrote:
Sorry Raphael but you are wrong this isn't about a personal vendetta but moreso about an editor who was just bad for Wikipedia. Seeing [[User:Metta Bubble]] ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Metta_Bubble ) depart the project as a result of Resid Gulerdem's bad influence on Wikipedia really sealed my view that he was indeed bad.
<snip/>
I just looked up on [[User:Metta_Bubble]]:
[[User:Metta_Bubble]] has been engaged in edit-warring on the [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] proposal. By looking at the main issue of this edit-war it becomes clear, why you're so sorry about his/her departure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiethics&diff=prev...
On April 8th both Rgulerdem and Metta_Bubble got warrantedly blocked for 3RR violation by [[User:Dmcdevit]]. Metta_Bubble felt treated unfairly and left.
I consider it very unfortunate how many editors (incl. Rgulerdem) either got indef-banned or left out of frustration, but I don't think, that your endless denouncements, which are only creating a negative atmosphere, will help in that matter.
On 6/6/06, Raphael Wegmann raphael@psi.co.at wrote:
I just looked up on [[User:Metta_Bubble]]:
[[User:Metta_Bubble]] has been engaged in edit-warring on the [[Wikipedia:Wikiethics]] proposal. By looking at the main issue of this edit-war it becomes clear, why you're so sorry about his/her departure.
This editor as well, please?
Jay.
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 22:44:13 +0200, you wrote:
On April 8th both Rgulerdem and Metta_Bubble got warrantedly blocked for 3RR violation by [[User:Dmcdevit]]. Metta_Bubble felt treated unfairly and left.
I'm not crying. Editors who cannot follow the rules even after they are warned, and who cannot tolerate enforcement of the rules, are not the kind of editors who make good Wikipedians. Even when something is wrong a good editor will take it to talk after one or two reversions.
Guy (JzG)