[WikiEN-l] Unblock request

Thu Jun 1 17:12:28 UTC 2006

   Hi all,
   I would like to report a 'misunderstanding' and ask someone please 
correct it:
   [[User:Netscott]] (Scott Stevenson) the most reputable, brilliant, nice, 
intelligent and respectful editor of all times (before and after Wiki-times) 
is mistakenly made an incorrect accusation about me. Based on that, an admin 
[[AmiDaniel]] with high quality investigator skills jumped onto his claim 
and blocked me for being a sockpuppet right away without any doubt about his 
action, indefinitely. Should I add that I haven't violated any policies? Who 
cares... He forgot to ask a checkuser if that accusation could be false. 
That actually wouldn't change much, I guess, because the most reputable 
checkuser Rev. EssJay decided that there is no reason even to check it and 
made a decision right away, in parallel, relying solely on his years of 
experience. He, Rev. EssJay, barely could stop himself from swearing at me 
because there are some regulations like [[WP:NPA]]. I am not sure if we need 
those rules but anyways...different issue.
   Now if there are some less reputable checkusers or admins around who 
think the situation may deserve a closer look, I do appreciate for it. I 
will love him/her forever, I promise!
   By the way, before I email a message here, I reported the case to the 
(info-en at wikipedia.org) and still waiting for a reply. Sorry for taking this 
unpleasant 'misunderstanding' situation here. Are the
same admins operating the info-en@ thing too?
   Are people talking about admin abuse here? Huh! It never happens in 
Wikipedia.
   [[User:TheLightning]]
   A poor user without any power to misuse.

Links might be of some interest:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TheLightning
2. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive104#User:TheLightning
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fethullah_G%C3%BClen#tag

>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] [[WP:OURS]] - A proposal for admin-user relations
>Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 15:08:32 +0200
>
>Resid Gulerdem,
>
>As a permanently blocked user you are not in the correct position to
>be discussing policy. This is particularly true when you continue to
>utilize sockpuppets [[User:TheLightning]] to be edit disruptively (re:
>[[Fethullah Gülen]] earlier today ).
>For interested parties please see Resid Gulerdem's Check User results:
>
>[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser/Rgulerdem]]
>
>and corresponding block log:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Rgulerdem
>
>Due to your continued disruptive editing, you should at minimum step
>away from the project for a year and then come back to discuss policy.
>
>Thank you,
>-Scott Stevenson [[User:Netscott]]
>
>
>On 5/31/06, Resid Gulerdem <resid_gulerdem at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The comments were very useful in general. The most
> > important ones among them are the ones addressing
> > possible ways to fix the problem. Writing a proposal
> > for it was one of them.
> >
> > I was thinking on this problem for quite some time and
> > had already some ideas about the solution in mind. I
> > decided to post them here. I am a user who blocked
> > indefinitely (how do you think I know the
> > 'admin abuse' issue by heart?) so, I do not have a
> > chance to propose it in Wikipedia at this point. I
> > hope that the points raised below contribute to the
> > efforts towards a solution. Just a quick suggestion...
> >
> > I tried to express it using a semi-formal language.
> > Further explanations are given [in the square
> > brackets].
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Resid
> >
> > --------------------
> > [[WP:OURS]]
> > --------------------
> >
> > [[WP:OURS]] (sysOp User RelationS or Wikipedia is
> > ours) is a policy aimed to clarify the relations
> > between sysops and users.
> >
> > [This could be named as [[WP:AURS]] (Admin-User
> > RelationS) as well.]
> >
> > 1. '''Ethics and Standards'''
> >
> > 'Content disputes' are one of the main dispute type
> > encountered. To avoid that, users need to follow
> > well-established ethics and standards of Wikipedia
> > (e.g.
> > [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics])
> >
> > [I think content disputes and the disputes around a
> > controversial issue are very important to address. If
> > the standards are applied strictly to everyone, that
> > would reduce the energy loss around these kind of
> > disputes.]
> >
> > [It is easier to write an article on a purely
> > technical matter ''in general'' (e.g. nose, motor,
> > etc). If the issue is controversial, that cause some
> > problems because sometimes (if not all the times)
> > admins are also part of the disputes. Their experience
> > and privileges then does not constitute a base for
> > neutralization of the article but -let me put it this
> > way- rather make them a target for
> > accusations. 'Wikilawyering' is not a term to explain
> > only ordinary user behavior. It is important to
> > realize that there is no stronger factor to polish the
> > reputation of Wikipedia than a neutral account
> > of the controversial issues.]
> >
> > [I referred to an updated version of a proposal I
> > started. I could not have a chance to put it to a vote
> > properly.]
> >
> > 2. '''Subject oriented study groups and committees'''
> >
> > Based on the area of specialization and interest,
> > experienced users (more than 6 months of editing
> > experience) may join the study groups. Study groups
> > work on the controversial articles categorized
> > as being related to their area of specialization and
> > can make recommendations on particular points. If
> > necessary, the study groups may also supervise
> > controversial articles until the dispute is
> > resolved.
> >
> > [Another way of eliminating disputes, I think, is to
> > form some study groups based on the area of
> > specialization of the users, say 'history of science',
> > etc. When disputes arise, the users may ask
> > the opinion of the related study groups. The group may
> > vote if necessary on the dispute and comes up with a
> > decision. It does not have to be a final decision
> > though, as usual. Many violations such as 3RR,
> > edit-wars, etc. can be diminished that way which may
> > result in a more friendly atmosphere between users and
> > admins who feel obligated to force the rules
> > consciously.]
> >
> > 3. '''Mentor-mentee program'''
> >
> > Each user is strongly encouraged to chose only one
> > admin mentor when s/he create an account in Wikipedia.
> > The users blocked by more than 3 admins are required
> > to have a mentor. Users can change their
> > mentor anytime they like before involved in a dispute
> > by the approval of the new admin chosen to be a
> > mentor. Anonym users are out of this program and these
> > accounts will be managed as before.
> >
> > [This will indicate the popularity of the admins and
> > will provide a dynamics measure of their success. This
> > dynamic approach might be better than reelecting them
> > periodically. There is almost no accountability of
> > admins in a practical way. They should be accountable
> > to the community. A periodic reaffirmation can be
> > added to this too, if someone thinks is of paramount
> > importance.]
> >
> > 4. '''Limited block policy'''
> >
> > A user can be blocked by only the mentor. In the case
> > the mentor is not available, an explanation should be
> > posted to the mentors talk page. The mentor can
> > unblock the user anytime s/he thinks is appropriate.
> > Anonym IP's will be managed as before.
> >
> > Indefinite block can only be decided by ArbCom, not by
> > an admin.
> >
> > [Admins know the rules better. If there is a concern
> > about a user's edits, they can discuss and get an
> > agreement on a block based on the rules. It should not
> > be hard to convince an admin about the applicability
> > of a specific policy. This approach put the discussion
> > of the validity of a block onto the admins involved
> > rather than to an admin-user dialogue which, not
> > surprisingly, results in a block. This part also gives
> > the flexibility to the admins who think a block is
> > unnecessary but do not want to step on another admin's
> > toe.]
> >
> > [And maybe for once, all users who are blocked so far
> > should be able to ask for an unblock, unconditionally,
> > after this policy gets approval, if it does. That may
> > bring some reconciliations and peace to the project.]
> >
> > ------------------------
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > 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

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/