User talk:Rgulerdem/Archive 3 (Mar 18, 06)

Notice

I just think it fair and the polite thing to do to warn you that one more revert and you will be in violation of WP:3RR. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of trying to convince you again but my edits are not and never have been vandalism, see Wikipedia:Vandalism for the exact definition and if you think my edits are vandalism then your judgement is clouded by your point of view (as mine is probably clouded by mine) the difference is that I can admit it and as such I have stopped actively editing the proposal lest you continue to revert all my edits. I would also like to point you to WP:OWN in which you are in violation since you are acting judge and jury as to what is allowed in the proposal and you are actively removing anything you don't like so as such you are acting like you own it. I suggest you let the poll go and if everyone agrees with you then either they'll all vote support for it or they'll comment on the fact that it is too soon... in fact I'll add that as a voting subheader so people who think it is too soon can express that without clogging up the general comment space. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

This is a warning that you are currently in violation of WP:3RR. Considering that this seems like a fairly minor issues I don't see why either of you should be blocked but please discuss instead of edit warring. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I am taking an administrative role in this I refuse to get involved beyond actively encourging you both to work it out, if it will help I'll post a note to that extent on the talk page. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I have left a plea for all editors to calm down which will hopefully help the situation as well as reminding everyone involved what will happen if this degrades into a massive edit war. Please try to work this out peacefully. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR and WP:OWN on Wikipedia:Wikiethics

I've blocked you for 24 hours for violating [[WP:3RR[[ and WP:OWN. If you don not want your proposal to be edited mercilessly, keep it in your userspace until it is finished. —Ruud 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your account was blocked for a reason. Stop editing using IP addresses; I have blocked 128.255.45.117 until the end of your block. If you use other IPs, I will extend your block. Superm401 - Talk 00:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Which I've already done to 31 hours. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:58 UTC (2006-03-18)

Thank you... Can I learn for what reason? Resid Gulerdem 01:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The IP was blocked because you were using it to evade a block of this username. You have also made edits from another IP 216.248.123.161, so I am extending that block until the block on your username expires. Do not edit from any computer until the block on this account has expired. Superm401 - Talk 02:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

ThoMas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked, and your block extended to 50 hours for block-circumventing sockpuppetry. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:33 UTC (2006-03-18)

I do not think that you know what you are doing! My blocking was not fair at all. We had a dispute on the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics with Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User:Metta Bubble is more experienced than me and so s/he reported my edits to 3RR page. Although s/he made much more reverts that I did, I am blocked by an admin who apperantly had no time to check the history of the page. That is unfair. Do you all admins work here like this?

Thomas is one of my friend but he is not sockpuppet. He was trying to help me when I am blocked by one of the admins.

I ask you, please if you are serious in being fair to all, check the history page Wikipedia:Wikiethics and see the demage Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did there. I hope you could consider taking some actions against him/her too.

It is good to ask people follow the rules, but you should do it more consciously. Resid Gulerdem 09:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

STOP NOW

You are to stop using IPs and sockpuppets immediately or I will not hesitate to indefinitely block you. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:01 UTC (2006-03-18)

Slow down! Read my note above. Resid Gulerdem 09:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Tell me NSLE, why did you delete this? Should not you take care of it? Are not these serious violations? Resid Gulerdem 09:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have extended 216.248.123.161's block to match the new 50 hour one. I won't extend the block on 128.255.45.117 because it is a University of Iowa address and there may be collateral damage; however I will contact their ITS if you continue to use that address for block avoidance. Superm401 - Talk 07:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

True or not, my ID address you wrote above is a personal information and you should not disclose it. Will you be agree on that too? Resid Gulerdem 10:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. IP addresses are open knowledge from page histories. Do not force us to file an arbitration request. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:51 UTC (2006-03-18)

I am sure you can do it for no reason, as you deleted a claim in the page I copied above. Apperantly you do not have higher administrative standards. What makes you think that I am forcing you (Who is us? Are you responsible to talk for Superm too?) for an arbitration request? Do your job correctly, unbiased, wisely... That is it! I do not ask you aything else. By the way do not bother me with your unnecessary messages anymore. Resid Gulerdem 11:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I am supposed to be unblocked now, it should be over. But NSL blocked me for no reason again. Who should I talk to about this? What is the reason you are doing that right now? He deleted my messages from his page too. You do not want to have your mistakes told you right? It is better to give advise to people around. How does it feel to misuse admin privileges NSL? Do you feel comfortable or ashamed? Resid Gulerdem 11:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No, you were/still are blocked 50 hours, and I'd advise y stop using your talk page to make disparaging remarks. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:18 UTC (2006-03-18)

Here is the reason NSL provided for his block:

• Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing You were blocked by NSLE with the reason "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Rgulerdem". The reason given for Rgulerdem's block is: "reinstating somehow-avoided block"." (see our blocking policy). Your IP address is 216.248.124.44.

I was supposed to be unblocked, not to be blocked. Will you stop your discretionary actions? For what reason you are extending the block? I would advise you unblock me right away and explain the reason for your poor behaviour! Resid Gulerdem 11:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, you are rightfully blocked (see above for reasoning on 50 hour block). Cut the incivility or I will extend the block. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:27 UTC (2006-03-18)

You are incorrect. You already extended right now. I was unblocked and you extended it for no reason. I am sure you can extend more. Once a person is used to misuse the priviliges he has, he starts doing so repeatedly. Calm down, and be civil. Or probably I shold talk to you in your tone so you can understand: Cut this discretionary action right now. You do not have right to block me for no reason! Resid Gulerdem 11:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I see no further reason to continue discussion with you. I will soon be in touch with an arbitration request. Your incivility has also led me to decide to protect your talk page - you can request unprotection by emailing an uninvolved admin. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:36 UTC (2006-03-18)

Unprotected

I've unprotected that page, but what I'd really advise is that you don't edit it anyway. Go away for a while, have a cuppa, look at some pretty pictures, think about what we're all here for.

I know that it can be difficult to be polite when you're frustrated, but it's not optional. Edits like "Or probably I shold [sic] talk to you in your tone so you can understand" don't help to resolve problems, they only escalate them.

brenneman^{T}{L} 11:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll second brenneman's comments, and remind you that blocking is not a punitive action, it's preventative. There is no automatic right to be unblocked, and you can expect your block to remain in force if you keep trying to evade your block by editing without logging in or editing from different accounts. So go look at some pictures, and if you're not a fan of pictures, go surfing for a while. When you are ready to work cooperatively, within the rules, we'll be ready to have you back. --bainer (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both. The point is my block is extended by NSLE for no reason for 50 hours. Why no one is dealing with it? Resid Gulerdem 12:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I will take your word for it and won't edit for now. But I still ask you please unblock me. I did nothing for a blockage. I cannot undertand this. Simply not fair. Resid Gulerdem 12:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This admin (NSLE) is deleting all my edits. On his talk page it is OK. He is doing that on even another admins page. I put a note on the talk page of Talk another admin involved. I realized that NSLE deleted my comments on the other admin's talk page. It is totally uncomprehensible to me. He even vandalized a note I put on the policy proposalpage. He has gone too far... Resid Gulerdem 12:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Admin is wrong.

This man alone shouldn't be blamed for editing the articles. Just because somebody comes along while he is blocked doesn't mean he's a sockpuppet. Shame on NSLE _(T+C) —This unsigned comment was added by Hars Aldenn (talk • contribs) . (User's third edit?!?)

Well thank you! I was not used to hear natural voices recently. Can anyone unblock me too. NSLE blocked me for 50 hours for no reason. Resid Gulerdem 12:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiethics

I thought you might want to know about the poll in the Wikipedia:Wikiethics discussion page. Rgulerdem

Unfortunately - using an IP to evade a block predisposes me against any position you are taking there. However it seems you are not getting the support for your positioin that you desire, so I am not going to try and figure out exactly what your position is - Trödel 12:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I have commented on your request on my talk page. Please read there. I have also voted for a delay of the poll, and asked how the polls conflict. DanielDemaret 19:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocks

Ruglerdem, please listen. The block on this account, 216.248.123.161, and 216.248.123.156 will remain in effect until 12:56 on March 20, 2006 (UTC). I am also aware that you are editing from the University of Iowa address 128.255.45.117. This has not been blocked because it may be a shared address, but I will contact them if you evade your block using one of their addresses. You will not get unblocked by finding more IPs or usernames and spamming on talk pages. The only way you can get unblocked is by calming down and waiting patiently until 1 PM UTC of March 20th. Superm401 - Talk 20:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to edit before then (from any IP or account), you will be blocked indefinitely. Superm401 - Talk 20:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Blanking talk page

I have re-protected your talk page, as you blanked the warnings here (it's impossible for you to be archiving them, as you're blocked). NSLE _(T+C) at 05:16 UTC (2006-03-19)

Rgulerdem, please do not blank your talk page. It is important for other users and admins to be able to view the discussions about your block, and the warnings prior to your block, so they can understand why you were blocked. You can archive the warnings and block discussions later, if you like, but for at least as long as the block is in effect, the comments need to stay. I have unprotected your talk page, but I am warning you not to blank it again or it will be re-protected. --bainer (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware of that policy. Thank you for letting me know. I wish NSLE could inform me about it before protecting my page. S/he is apperantly takes the issue so personal and follow my steps in Wiki. Is there any way that I can inform some supervisors about NSLE's unethical behaviour? I cannot believe this: NSLE could himself extended my blockage for 50 hours for no reason and nobody is willing to unblock me. Shouldn't there be a rule for discretionary actions? Please let me know also if I can talk to a superviser regarding my unfair blockage? There is no reason for being blocked at this point! Resid Gulerdem 05:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There are no official supervisors, Rgulerdem, administrators are a community of peers. I would remind you that a number of admins have viewed your page, a number of them warned you not to violate the three revert rule, and a number of them have agreed with your block. You are free to appeal to other admins if you view your block as unfair, but none so far have disagreed. My advice is to wait out your block, refrain from making any more inflammatory (or even potentially inflammatory) remarks and try to make a fresh start when your block expires. --bainer (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thebainer, please take some time and listen to my case:

I started a policy proposal Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I invited some people for contribution. Unfortunately, among them, became clear later that, there was a person I should not have invited. That person, Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continuously reported the dispute we are having on Wikiethics page to WP:AN/3RR incorrectly. Although I was not violating 3 revert rule (please show me where I did, if you believe that I violated), an admin Ruud blocked me without prior warning. Then a friend of mine User:ThoMas is posted Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s reverts on the page WP:AN/3RR but no action is taken. NSLE deleted that information from the page WP:AN/3RR. S/he even deleted my note regarding the issue from the talk page of the admin Superm401. When my block is ower I was back to edit. I signed in, but know what? NSLE bloced me again for no reason. Now I am still blocked although my blockage at the first place was not fair and justified. Again, if I am wrong, please provide a link so that I violated a 3 RR. Do you think it is fair?

In this process, the only mistake I did was, I used anonim IP's to edit on the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics. But I always signed my name like Resid even I was using anonim IP's. NSLE even vandalized my edit in that page. Why I used anonim IPs: Becase Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is trying to kill a precess I started. There was a concensus for having a poll later in two months about the proposal. Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and another user decided to start a poll right away. The policy page is not mature and I would like to improve it with other users contribution. I announced the page on some pages including 'village pump'. To stop their action on killing the proposal, I felt I have to make some comments using anonim IP. I accept that it is wrong. Now, on Wikipedia:Wikiethics, Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deleted my poll regarding if we need to have a poll at this stage of the article. S/he played a dirty game on me and I still cannot find a way to stop that destruction. I cannot see why anybody go check it and take some actions on Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s vandalisms.

Thanks for your note. Resid Gulerdem 06:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User: Metta Bubble

This is the note about User: Metta Bubble's destruction on Wikipedia:Wikiethics page. The list does not cover the ones after I am blocked.

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Wikiethics (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Wikiethics|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

1. Reverts:

reverting per POV starting edit war reverting per POV starting edit war reverting per POV starting edit war starting edit war reverting per POV starting edit war In the links above Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverting the page according to POV.

2. Vandalism:

deleting another editors comments deleting another editors comments In the links above Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing another editors comments or just deleting some of them.

3. Vandalizing another editors comments:

destructing another editors comments destructing another editors comments In the links above Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making changes on comments of another editor to change the course of discussion or change the intension of the editor.

Reported by: Resid Gulerdem 09:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

Vandal Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is vandalizing, destructing and reverting continuously the discussion page Wikipedia:Wikiethics according to POV. Uncivil comments can be found in the history page. Immediate attention is required.

Three Revert Rule

Resid, I suggest you read the three-revert rule policy carefully. Reverts are edits "undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part," not just any objectionable edit. The four reverts you made are [1], [2], [3], [4]. You were blocked as a result of them; I can also see clearly that you were previously warned about reverting by Pegasus1138. There was absolutely no reason for Ruud to warn you again after that. You claim that a friend posted a 3RR complaint about Metta Bubble that was unfairly ignored. However, the text was removed because it is clear that ThoMas was actually you evading a block (in this edit, you sign as yourself). If you still believe Metta Bubble violated the 3RR, you can post this information to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR after your block expires; an uninvolved admin can decide. Superm401 - Talk 09:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will take your advise for it and will read it again. And a piece of advise to you: please read my comments carefully too, before attempting to write an answer. Moreover, look at the dispute more closer to get a better idea.

• Pegasus1138 is a user and his warn is just a cheap tactic as User:Metta Bubble's complains about me on WP:AN/3RR. If you look at my name on that page, you will see that Pegasus1138 is also warned by an admin at the same time I am warned for other reasons. Do you care about a tactic-warning from a person in the opposite side of the dispute? These two users are foxy and well experienced. They wanted me blocked so that they can destroy the policy page I started. And they are almost there. Thanks to the admins involved... I will definitely fix things when I am unblocked.
• User:ThoMas is not a soccpuppet. He was trying to help me and new to Wiki. I am sure he doesn't want to be part of Wiki family anymore and I do not blame on him. I understand from your comments that you really did not check the links I provided. If you look at the User:Metta Bubble case, you will see more serious violations. If you look at this link you will see that Thomas is only copy-pasting a comment from me (not signing my name), which is vandalized by User:Metta Bubble earlier. If, you check the history of the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics you will see that, you cannot find a single incident that, I used an IP and did not sign the page. If I am using an anonim IP, I always sign it by Resid. You can check it, it is all there....
• When I was unblocked, I posted my complaint about User:Metta Bubble on the WP:AN/3RR and another admin deleted it second time, after NSLE did. You can check it from the history. And right after my post on WP:AN/3RR, I am blocked by admin NSLE for 50 hours for no reason. You can check my edit on the page WP:AN/3RR and when I am blocked by NSLE.
• Now, I am writing all those, you read it and some other admins. No one stop this unfair judgement of NSLE and unblock me. Can you tell me why? Do not you want to step on another admins toes? Is it more important than to eliminate an unjust act?
• No one taking any actions against User:Metta Bubble. Can you explain me why? You say: 'if I believe, I can post it there on WP:AN/3RR. An admin will look at it'. I am saying I did it and as a result I am blocked for it. Why do not you, for example, as a person contributed to the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics and know some about what has happened, go ahead and take some action against Vandal but directing me to some others instead? All the evidences I provided is there. You apperantly know what 3RR rule is... You are warning me every other hour if I use IP, or whatever, I will be blocked indefinitely. Can't you really do something about Metta too, just for the sake of fairness, at least?

I am loosing my trust to the system here, and to some admins specifically, unfortunately. Resid Gulerdem 10:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Resid, perhaps you haven't understood the sequence of events here, so I'll go through them again: firstly you were warned by Jtkiefer (who also warned the other user engaged in reverting). Some hours later, you were blocked for 24 hours by Ruud for continuing to revert. You then edited from a different IP address, thus evading your block. As such, the block was extended to 31 hours by NSLE, with the support of Superm401. Your block was subsequently extended again to 50 hours, after you edited from another IP address, and apparently from the account ThoMas (all accounts signed with your name).

You should also read the blocking policy. Blocks are per person, not per account. Using different accounts, or editing anonymously, indicates a bad faith attempt to evade your block, which as I stated above, is a preventative action designed to enforce a cooling off period.

As you can see, there have been at least five different admins involved here. Here we are concerned with your behaviour, not anyone else's, and we have all agreed that your behaviour has been inappropriate. However, if you can serve out the remainder of your block (currently about 26 hours) in peace, and then return and edit constructively, there will be no problems. Please try to relax until that time. --bainer (talk) 10:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask you if you did write this after my note above? As I explained above, I do accept that using IP's was no good. I also explained my reason for it. NSLE did not extended my blockedge 50 hours because I used IP. I was unblocked at that time. You can see it from WP:AN/3RR history page. After I post the info about Metta Bubble, I am blocked by NSLE. I cannot understand your saying (all accounts signed with your name)? What do you mean? If you look at carefully, you will see that the same admin is blocked him too. Please look at my note above about the case again. I cannot see your point. I am saying that: He is a friend of mine. He was trying to help me. I do not use sockpoppets. I have always signed my name (like Resid) in the talk pages even when I am using anonim IP, I do not need to use a sockpuppet. You are still saying that 'all accounts signed with your name'. Can you help me understand this, please?

You know what: it is not end of the world that I cannot edit for two days here. I do not care and it does not matter. What matters is the principles: I am right, but my account punihsed unjustly. That is what I cannot accept. Would the admins who think that my behaviour is inappropriate like to be in my position? Thanks for the note, and trying to make the case clearer to me anyways... Resid Gulerdem 11:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Let me try to explain to you in the clearest English possible - if you don't speak English as a first language perhaps feeding the reply through an online translator will help. As Bainer said, you were first warned and blocked over 3RR. As you're not supposed to edit while you're blocked, I (with agreement of Superm401) extended your block to 31 hours. During this time, the IP addresses which you posted replies with (as well as User:ThoMas), whcih all had left messages signed as "Resid", were blocked. When you continues to use IP addresses (WP:POINT, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point), I decided to extend your block to 50 hours. Here is the confusing part. Somehow or other, within the same day, without you ever being unblocked (see your block log:

• 18:56, March 18, 2006 NSLE blocked "Rgulerdem (contribs)" with an expiry time of 50 hours (reinstating somehow-avoided block)
• 12:32, March 18, 2006 NSLE blocked "Rgulerdem (contribs)" with an expiry time of 50 hours (unblock to extend block for using sockpuppets to circumvent block) )

You were never unblocked, but somehow resumed editing. As you were supposed to be blocked, I reverted (and other users too) your chages to the 3RR vio report page - as while you're blocked, you shouldn't be editing, we don't care if the report is true or not, you can always report it AFTER your block.

As you were never unblocked, but had resumed editing, there was obviously a flaw in the system, and hence I re-instated your 50 hour block. Therefore your current block is for the same reason as the first 50-hour block that due to some glitch in the system expired. I hope I've cleared this up. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:46 UTC (2006-03-20)

It is clear that you can read and write in English like a native. I am not sure though if you can understand well what you are reading. I am sorry that I do not know any dictionary or something else to suggest you to cure this problem.

• Could you understand what I wrote about User:ThoMas. Please go and read once more, carefully this time. And then answer my question: How come in this world that you are blocking an editor for nothing? I ask you unblock him right away. He is certainly lost all his interest in a single day to Wiki, but still you should take back your unethical and unjustified action. How come you deleted this? It was edited by User:ThoMas. Is it enough if you say someone is sockpuppet for him be? Is what you say here a rule? I ask you justify your action...
• I am not asking you why you blocked IP's I was using. I already said it was not true and explained why I did that. I also added that I always sign my edits even I am using an IP. I do not need to use a sockpuppet. What is hard to understand here?
• The flaw in the system is not my problem. If I am unblocked, then I am unblocked. I recommend you go and fix the problem in the system, not delete my edits. Here it is clear that I was unblocked and I edited properly. Nothing wrong on my part!
• Can you also explain why you deleted my edit from Wikipedia:Wikiethics page I linked above? Is it a standard action too? How about deleting my edits in the other admins pages?
• You did not extended to 50 hours because I was using IP addresses. You extended it right after I made this edit. Aren't you distorting the facts a little bit? I was unblocked, I edited, I signed and my signature clearly reflects that I was unblocked in the link above. So how come you are extending it? Is it because your system is not working properly? OK, let us say you see that the system is not working properly, and you wanted to fix it: Why is the extension then? Why you did not reinstated to the earlier 31 hours but increased more as your wish, 50 hours?

I recommend you be more responsible and wise in using your priviliges. They are not for misusing... Resid Gulerdem 05:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Resid, even if you were temporarily unblocked (due to an error), NSLE was right to reblock you (at 10:56) because (between 04:32 and 10:56) you had been avoiding your block using an IP (216.248.123.156). Until NSLE's 10:56 block, no block had been issued for that evasion. If you thought you were legitimately unblocked, you wouldn't have used an IP. There is no policy that once unblocked by accident, you can not be reblocked for evasion. Finally, after your block expires, feel free to report the alleged 3RR violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR; no one will stop you. Superm401 - Talk 05:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, again, I used IPs and I did it explicitely. I checked my account, it was unblocked, and started to use it. Right after the first use, I am blocked with an increased extension...

I will definitely report the vandalism. Why do not you take care of the issue, and post it back on 3RR page for example? You know the issue pretty well now. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 06:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, vandalism and reverts are very different things. Reverts are not usually vandalism and vice-versa. I am not going to post your 3RR claim, but you can when your block expires; a uninvolved admin will look at it. Superm401 - Talk 06:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Eyes forward

I whole-heartedly recomend that you simply have a nice break, archive your talk page when it's over, and move on with constructive editing. A whole slew of people have looked at this situation and all appear to think that nothing untoward has occured. Just let it go, edit harmoniously from now on, and everything will be all rainbows and fluffy bunnies. To keep running over the same ground will only wear a rut and muddy your wheels, and will aid neither you nor the encyclopedia. - brenneman^{T}{L} 05:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right an I will do that. Thanks for your and other admins (bainer and maybe Superm401 recently) possitive attitude. If you could unblock User:ThoMas, that would help me to feel much better. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 06:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not unblocking User:ThoMas, as I still believe he is a sockpuppet. I'm having this investigated at the moment. Superm401 - Talk 07:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think I asked it from User:Aaron Brenneman. But anyways, let me see what they have to say first... Resid Gulerdem 07:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would think you'd be certain of the outcome if you were not User:ThoMas. It sounds like you're trying to game the system (i.e. it was you, but you're hoping it wasn't any of the known IPs). Superm401 - Talk 08:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks that you are not so good at reading peoples' intensions. It is not a good habit at the first place though. Resid Gulerdem 23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, Superm401 AND Resid, I've asked Essjay to speed this one up, so we can put this behind us (if it really wasn't you). Essjay is doing the CU as I type this, I believe. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:15 UTC (2006-03-20)

ThoMas was just confirmed to be a sockpuppet. We cannot unblock that account, Resid. You should have known. I can let it drop and pretend this whole sockpuppetry never happened after your block expires, though, if Superm is agreeable and you do not commit further sockpuppetry. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:58 UTC (2006-03-20)

Since NSLE already extended your block because of ThoMas, for now I'll ignore the fact that you lied to our faces. However, I'm not going to have any patience for sockpuppetry in the future. Superm401 - Talk 09:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should thank you for it. I will do a favor to you too and ignore your insisting on sockpupetry. And I won't tolerate discretionary and rude behaviours of admins. I will be following their doble standards against different users. It is as bad as lying. Regarding the lies, read my note below. Resid Gulerdem 23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: I extended your block because of ThoMas being the change from 31 hours to 50. Your current block still expires in ... about two and a half hours by my recokoning, haven't checked. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:17 UTC (2006-03-20)

Your clarification is not so clear to me, you know my English... If you check the history, it is clear that you extended my blockage right after I edited in the 3RR page. Resid Gulerdem 23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. He is a different user. As I explained here at the very beginning - even before you applied to checkuser, he is a friend of mine and new to Wiki. He was trying to help me to fix the destruction and vandalism caused by Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics. I helped him in doing so. All my edits shows that, I used IPs but I used them explicitely. I singned all my talks even when I was using anonim IPs. There is no single incident you can show that I edited but did not sign. I do not use suckpuppets, I do not need it, I do not like that idea. Your conclusions miss all those. You can still believe as you wish of course, if my explanations does not look satisfactory to you. But at least calling someone a liar by ignoring all these facts is nothing but rude, uncivilic and irresponsible statement. It also shows a bias and an emotional attitude towards me. Resid Gulerdem 23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to leave this dispute aside too. I need your offense stop to that end. Resid Gulerdem 23:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no offence on our part. CheckUser is one of the, if not THE, foremost authority on sockpuppetry, as it uses IP addresses and compares editing patterns, and is highly accuate when proxies are not used. If you "friend" edited from the same computer as you, then we have no way to verify that claim, and cannot unblock it. I'm willing to put this behind us, though. One more thing, please, 3RR reports go on the 3RR page and not the admin's noticeboard. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:32 UTC (2006-03-21)

Well we are here about 100 people using the same lines. It might hit the IP I used before when he connected, I do not know. By the way, you should not block it indefinitely, can you? I think a person can have more than one name, even if you think he is me. I ask you please unblock it. I am pretty sure that he didn't like the Wiki much, but unjustified actions makes me feel so bad. If you want to set these issues aside, as I do, unblocking Tom would be a good indication of it. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not just the IP address, the editing pattern (the fact he signed your name, he shouldn't have done that) drew us to it. Technically, no, it's not wrong to have more than one account, but it is wrong to have more than one account to misuse like ThoMas's account was misused. Look around for any admin - I'm sure all will agree that ThoMas cannot be unblocked, or have his block shortened. That's where our hands are tied. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:12 UTC (2006-03-21)

WHat do you consider as misuse? Resid Gulerdem 03:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Anything that violates wikipedia policies. NSLE _(T+C) at 03:31 UTC (2006-03-21)

Then definitely Tom was not misusing anything. So, you should unblock him. Or, you might prefer to tell me what he was violating. Resid Gulerdem 04:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:SOCK. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:54 UTC (2006-03-21)

First, it was not a sockpuppet. Second, the page says, I quote: Note that this should only be done if the account has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a sock puppet of the user by one of the following: the user's own admission; matching of IP addresses or similar strong technical evidence; a ruling on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Resid Gulerdem 05:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Emphasis mine, "by one of the following: the user's own admission; matching of IP addresses or similar strong technical evidence; a ruling on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration" NSLE _(T+C) at 05:05 UTC (2006-03-21)

How can I learn what is their evidence you emphasised? Resid Gulerdem 05:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The CheckUser result. CheckUser is only given to the most trusted editors (as far as I know, less than 10 people have it), and is usually correct, unless a proxy has been used. I'm about to go offline now, so we'll continue this discussion later when I get back on. NSLE _(T+C) at 05:10 UTC (2006-03-21)

When you are back, please let me know about the evidence. Resid Gulerdem 07:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm online now, but I'll be spotty as I'm working on other users as well. Like I mentioned above, the evidence is the CheckUser result. CheckUser is the most conclusive evidence, when coupled with editing patterns, one can get to prove sockpuppetry. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:44 UTC (2006-03-21)

Since sockpuppetry is not true, I doubt the evidences they have and would like to learn what is it? How can I learn the evidences (or lack of thereof). I would like to unblock Tom's account. Resid Gulerdem 07:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to put it simply. You can't block or unblock anything [you prolly already knew that, just emphasising], and no admins, ask anyone - any admin at all - will unblock ThoMas. Once we get the CheckUser results, little else is important. If by evidence you mean the actual results from CU, that is not possible, even admins and bureaucrats do not have that access, only the CheckUser people do. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:51 UTC (2006-03-21)

Should I talk to them directly? Resid Gulerdem 07:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

<-

You can, but I wouldn't bother. If admins and bureaucrats don't get that information, they aren't going to release it to you. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:58 UTC (2006-03-21)

They claim it is about me, so? Resid Gulerdem 08:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I give up!

Hi Resid. You were warned by three contributing editors on that page: Myself, Pegasus, and WAS4.250. You were warned by (at least) three separate admins: Superm401, Zoe, and NSLE. We all warned you to stop editing other peoples comments and stop trying to undermine existing threads. This violates 3RR, it is vandalism and it disrupts the project. Superm401 warned you specificly here on your talk page that you risk being blocked indefinitely if you continued to ignore policies. I have posted numerous requests for you to discuss actions without taking them and you have ignored them all. I can only hope that either a swift banning is on it's way or an arbitration case may help you become a more positive contributor to this encyclopedia. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Happy editing! --Rory096 08:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

All the editor did was move the poll upwards on the page. He even gave a reason. Why did you accuse that editor of vandalism, twice, for that matter? --Rory096 08:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Becuase it is without discussion. And it changes the sutructure of the poll. At the bottom it doesn ,make sense. Resid Gulerdem 08:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning WikiEthics

You are currently at your 3RR limit for Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics. Netscott 08:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Resid, if you do not want to be blocked again, please avoid reverting. Current consensus is three to one against you for where the poll should be. NSLE _(T+C) at 08:58 UTC (2006-03-21)

• Please be aware of your latest 3RR violation report. Netscott 10:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 15 minutes

I did not want to do this, but you insisted on adding myself, Netscott and Rory096 to WP:AN3. 3RR is very clearly defined. There was no 3RR. If you feel that that was a problem, you could've used the admin noticeboard, and not the 3RR. Blocked 15 minutes for disruption. NSLE _(T+C) at 09:25 UTC (2006-03-21)

I will definitely make another report about you. How come in this woprld you are not blocking Metta Bubble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but me? Can't you see him/her? Why are not you trying to be at least fair to both sides? Resid Gulerdem 11:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I am more well versed in this case surrounding you, and not him, and have decided to let a different admin review that bit of the case. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:17 UTC (2006-03-21)

So why did you revert back Wikiethics page to his version. Please take the Wikiethics page to the from before the edit war. The poll I started was at the top from the beginning of this fool poll issue. Up untill your group decide to change it an hour ago. Resid Gulerdem 11:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please change the Wikiethics page to the from before the edit war. It should be the form that Approval poll comes second. You should nerver get into the issue as an admin. Why you are helping vandals? Resid Gulerdem 11:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Warning

Resid. You are up to 6 reverts or more now on the Wikipedia_talk:Wikiethics page. You are warring against at least 6 different editors about the position of the APPROVAL POLL. Your edits are considered vandalism as they mess with the chronology of the talk page. Your announcement on WP:AN/3RR#User:_Metta_Bubble is in clear violation of WP:POINT. Please understand these are serious breaches of policy and civility, and a major disruption to wikipedia. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 10:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

To the admins who are visiting this page

I do not have a chance to post this to WP:AN page because I am blocked by admin NSLE. Admin NSLE is supporting vandals against me. Although there is a long list of reverts on the page WP:AN/3RR by User:Metta Bubble, the admin NSL is not blocking him, but he is blocking me instead. Moreover, instead of reverting WIkipedia:Wikiethics talk page to the form before the edit war, he is supporting vandals and reverting to their version after he blocked me. NSLE is acting together with vandals and as a vandal and misusing his privileges. Right after I put this note to my talk page, he even deleted this note from my talk page. Wiki community awareness and help is appreciated. Resid Gulerdem 11:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The reversion was a mistake, and I apologise. Wikipedia has been very slow lately, and has been a huge dick, and I had no intention to delete this, or I'd have done so when I posted the message about the Arbcom request. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:54 UTC (2006-03-21)

I do not believe you. Did you revert the Wikiethics page too mistakenly? If so, why do not you revert it back to the preedit war form? Resid Gulerdem 12:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is my post on the WP:AN page. Resid Gulerdem 12:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The users (and admins) NSL-Netscott-User:Rory096 misusing their previleges

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Wikiethics (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Wikiethics|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Netscott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

Netscott is reverting my edits without discussion. They are with two admins NSL and Rory096 are playing a dirty game on me. They are trying to push me to violate 3RR. They are acting together. I am looking some democrat admins here to help me in this issue. It is an unethical action done by 3 people. Any help would be appreciated. Please see my talk page to see their notes too.

Netscott's vandalism:

reverting without discussion

reverting again without discussion

The poll was always at the top from the beginning. He even tries to change his/her earlier comments. His comments he was trying to change here clearly indicates that the poll was at the top all along the way.

Admin NSL is someone we had some issues with. Our dispute can be viewed in my talk page. He is second person of this group. And here is his vandalism and unjustified revert:

reverting for no reason

He right after I posted this note onto 3RR page, first delete this note and blocked me for 15 minutes. He takes the dispute we had personal and apparently trying to ruin all my edits. I am sure they have an indefinite blockage in their mind.

User:Rory096 is I believe another admin. It looks to me that s/he is also their friend in pushing me into a condition that they can block me. Maybe indefinitely. Here is this user unjustified revert.

reverting for no reason and without discussion.

Reported by: Resid Gulerdem 12:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

I need immediate help form the editors who are ethical and care about misusing their privileges. I would like to get support of the Wiki family to be able to respond the admins who are misusing their privileges. Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 12:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Right after this note abve, User:Metta Bubble started vandalizing the Wikipedia:Wikiethics page again. As I was trying to revert his vandalisms Netscott recorded my reverts and NSL blocked me per Netscott's records. He certainly did not block vandal Metta Bubbles. They are a group of vandals, among them there are admins, and trying to kill the proposal I started, block me indefinitely, and force me to quit from being a Wikipedian. And as a single person dealing with this issues, I need the support and help of community. Someone should say stop this group terorrizing Wiki editors and proposals. Resid Gulerdem 12:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFAR

I am bringing an arbitration request against you, and have named Metta Bubble, Netscott, Superm401, Aaron Brenneman and Thebainer as parties. Please go to WP:RFAR to comment when your block runs out. NSLE _(T+C) at 11:44 UTC (2006-03-21)

3RR block

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the Three-revert rule. There is a reason that rule exists - to limit edit wars. It's always better to talk than to revert, and nothing is so important that it requires you to revert it that many times in a day. The world doesn't revolve around Wikipedia. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, you cannot violate the rule. In addition, if you alone are making the revert, and are being opposed by several other editors, it's always important to stop and ask yourself why you are being opposed by so many people, but are not being supported. Guettarda 14:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It looks you have an idea regarding why I did nto get overwhelming support. I have some ideas about it too. Try to answer this question: Why did not you take the case of User:Metta Bubble on the same WP:AN/3RR page but took my case for blockage. He has a longer list of reverts than I have. His case entered earlier. If your answer to this question and my answer are close, then we are thinking similar regarding the suppport I am getting... Resid Gulerdem 01:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiethics

Please don't risk the whole proposed policy Wikiethics because of rather small issues. I think, that the policy is very useful, even if Metta Bubble pushes his plans to show pronography through. If you need any help please contact me via email. Raphael1 16:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Raphael. Thanks for the note. I do not know how to use emailing in Wiki. So, I do not know how I can find your email. If you can, and want to, please drop couple of lines to me. It would be good to know about you independent from the issues here. Thanks again... Resid Gulerdem 01:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I am blocking the IP. Please don't edit with any IP or account while blocked. I'm giving you a warning this time, and will no extend the 24 hour block on the account. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:11 UTC (2006-03-22)

Pardon me? Resid Gulerdem 01:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's in the page history, you're not supposed to edit with any accounts other than your own while blocked (even if it is to your own talk page). However, since it was only to your talk page, I don't feel it's worth extending your main block for, but please don't give me, or any admin, a reason to extend your main block. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:16 UTC (2006-03-22)

What are you talking about? Do not you see I am using my account? You do not need to have a reason to block me... Resid Gulerdem 01:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You tried to cover it up by overwriting the IP's signature with your own, but the page history and diffs don't lie. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:29 UTC (2006-03-22)

That is true. And it is good that you know where to find your whole archive of lies. I was using my account and signed it. But I realized that I am disconnected when I save the page. Actually while signing again we had an edit conflict if you realized... Be more conscious. Resid Gulerdem 01:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the page history, there was three minutes between my post and your changing of the sig. I never received an edit conflict on my end, and a three-minute edit conflict is quite a stretch. Also, I do not appreciate your assertion about me lying about anything. Please assume good faith - it's one of the cores of Wikipedia. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:46 UTC (2006-03-22)

It looks my modem is not as fast as yours. In your statements and explanations above, you are implying that I am lying but the diffs does not. If you imply that someone is a liar, you shuld not cry when you hear something similar. I do not appreciate your offense when you are implying that I am liar either. Your last message clearly states that you are not assuming good faith, although you know how to provide a link to that policy. Resid Gulerdem 03:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Resid, take it easy. There's no need to argue that. You can email me by clicking "E-mail this user" in the toolbox on my talk page. Raphael1 03:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Scrabble

Rgulerdem
Ok, you've gotten yourself in a bit of a jam.

• First, if someone *cough* me *cough* without an agenda comes along and wants to see what the story is, the place to begin is with page histories. Things can be confusing enough when everyone edits signed in and you've had some trouble with IPs before, so please do be careful about that and use an edit summary like "correcting sig, logged out by accident" or its ilk.
• Second, please try to avoid the inflammitory language. It's possible to be 100% in the right and have no one care because you raise such an alimighty hue and cry that the community wants you blocked just to shut you up. I understand that you're feeling aggrieved, but the more calmly and disspassionatly you state your case, the more likely people are to listen.
• I'd refer to [5] as an example: This statement, to most Wikipedians, will look like "blah blah bluelink bluelink blah blah". When seeing a sentance like "trying to kill a proposal [...] for no reason" most people will just tune out. Clearly they have some reason, it just may not be clear to you. It would have been better as:

  • Background: WP:AN (link to actual section), WP:AN/3RR (link to actual section), Wikipedia:Wikiethics

  User:Metta Bubble and Netscott initiated an approval poll at the very early stage of the Wikiethics proposal. I initiated a second poll on the question ofif the first poll is necessary at this stage. The second poll was altered several times [diff1] [diff2] [diff3]. Following this I was blocked for two days for 3RR violation. During this period the second poll was deleted. [diff4] It appears that administrator actions are being used to gain advatage in a content dispute. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem

• Do you see how this removes all the personal opinions and, barring the last setance, just states facts? Opinions about things may differ, so better just to lay it out and let people decide. Note to how it becomes the "second poll" as opposed to "my poll" making it clear that you don't WP:OWN the article. If you can get yourself to think like that, even better. Also, I can't find an example of you linking to a diff, so if you don't know how to do that just ask.

brenneman^{L} 02:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• Dear Aaron, those are all important points. Thanks for the note. I will try to find some time to update it. Just a qucik note: I do not claim that community wants to shut me up, but a few users do want that. Second, me saying 'my poll' is not because I am proud of it, it is because the placement of the poll is so vandalized that it is hard to say which one is first or second. And a question: Could you please let me know if I can start an arbitration for NSL, MettaBubble and Netscott or this one is enough to that end. I have complaints about them and in this arbitration it looks to be that NSLE is complaining about me. I think I know how to put links, I can do that. Although irrelevant, if you let me know how to email a Wikipedian, I would appreciate for it. Thanks.. Resid Gulerdem 03:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The current request for arbitration has been withdrawn, but I suspect that a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct may be forthcoming, in which the conduct of everyone involved would be open for discussion. I know it's difficult, but try as much as possible not to use words like "vandalized" which have very specific meanings and the mis-use of which tends to set people's hair on end. Oh, and there should be a link <- over there in the toolbox that says "e-mail this user" when you're on their user page.
    brenneman^{L} 06:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiethics

Hi Rgulerdem. Where do I vote on that page? --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

re:poll

Because it is a violation of policy and it's sole purpose is to scuttla a poll already in progress. I suggest you keep improving the policy and take my suggestion and let the original poll run it's course and if you improve it enough I'm sure people will vote to turn it into a policy or at least decide not vote to oppose it, using another vote just to scuttle my vote is an underhanded tactic. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 23:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tiger

Resid, please be aware of this WP/AN. Netscott 00:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for talk page spamming

You have been blocked for spamming user talk pages. It is not appropriate to announce a project, proposal, or other activity on multiple user talk pages in this manner; this goes doubly for agitating for votes for or against a current straw poll. You may publicize your proposal on the Village Pump once your block has expired (31 hours from now). I will unblock you if you indicate that you understand that this was inappropriate and promise not to do it again. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am inviting people to contribute a proposal. It is not spamming. How come you are blocking me from editing. You did not even warn me about it. I did not even know if letting people about a discussion is not acceptable here? Is it? Please unblock my account. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 01:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I already annunced it on the VP. What is wrong if I invite some other people I think might be interested? Resid Gulerdem 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I said that I would unblock you if you "indicate that you understand that this was inappropriate and promise not to do it again". So far you have not so indicated. You were blocked as a protective measure to abort your spamming activities. Once you make it clear that you will not resume them and that you understand that such actions are not welcome on Wikipedia (whether or not you agree with the logic behind the rule), you will be unblocked. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How should I indicate it. I did not even know if letting people about a discussion is not acceptable here? I quoted what I said above. I did not know and I will follow the rule if there is such a rule of course. Please direct me to the link at which this rule is discussed. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 01:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• To notify both of you Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tiger_loose has an additional comment. Netscott 01:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The guideline which relates to talk page spamming may be found here. Talk page spamming is an inherently incivil act. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Why you still did not unblock my account? Resid Gulerdem 02:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin, I said why you did not unblocked my account... Resid Gulerdem 03:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I said I would unblock you when you have acknowledge that user talk spamming is inappropriate and you have promised not to do so again. All you have done is promised not to do so conditionally on your being convinced that there is a "rule" against it. As you have not admitted that user talk spamming is inappropriate and have not clearly promised not to do so again, your block stands. Why don't you take the night off? Maybe read a book; I hear that Neal Stephenson's a good author. Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you testing my patience? I am pretty calm today, good for you. I know now that there is a rule for spamming which is good but you do not know that it is not applicable to my case: I was not spamming. I was just letting a selected group of people who might not be aware of the proposal and who might want to know about it. (Babylon - spamming: simultaneous sending of an irrelevant message to a large number of discussion groups on the Internet) Warning before blocking is part of admin ethics. I probably should start proposing another proposal for admins. I can decide myself for what to do tonight, thans for your suggestion though. My suggestion would be: unblock me right now. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 04:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thing I'm a relatively tolerant admin. Your last message really tempts me to extend your block to indefinite, but I'm not going to do that. I really do suggest that you spend some time away from the computer over the remaining time of your block, though. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not agree with you. You are far from being tolerant.

• You blocked me without a prior warning.
• You blocked me 31 hours, just your personal decision.
• You blocked me for something that you think is inappropriate. In reality nothing wrong with it.
• You are talking about extending it further. Will you extend the block for me being rebellious to admins?

I really recommend you take some time to think. Is 'assume good faith' policy just a link for you to color your talks, when talking to ordinary users? Resid Gulerdem 05:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Rgulerdem. I'm an admin who has not been involved in any of your recent activities. I think you might have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of Wikipedia. This is not a formal law system which can be gamed. This is an encyclopedia. Admins have broad discretion here to take action to protect the encyclopedia. While I understand that you're upset, I'd like you to acknowledge that you understand why Kelly has blocked you, and I'd like you to promise to not do it again.

You may, if you wish, consider this to be a warning for any future blocks that I may choose to put on you should you continue to disrupt the functioning of the encyclopedia. But I'd hope you would instead view it as friendly advice.

Kind regards, Nandesuka 05:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nandesuka,

I am glad that you are trying to be unbias. I have no problem that admins trying to keep this place as good as possible. What I would like you to see is: it can only be done by wisdom, and consciousness. Warning before blocking is not a luxury, it is a standard. I wish Kelly would chose that way. Asking about the reasons for my actions if not well understood by an admin is not a luxury, it is so wise. Asking and warning doesnt take more than 5 min and doesn't makes Wiki a volnerable place. It rather creates a better and friendly atmosphere.

I think you misunderstood my statemnts. I am not looking for a formal structure to play with. I am expecting for well-accepted, well-established ethics form the admins in Wikipedia.

Regarding making a promise, it is childish request. I cannot make promise on the desire of an admin. We should first determine what is spam. And this is not a game, it is serious. As I explained clearly above, what I am doing is not spam at all. And an admin calling it spam doesnt make it spam.

You should not expect me take whatever you say as it is. We are talking about rules, regualtions, and standards. This is not a game and I am not acting. I am stating serious concerns need to be addressed. In a civil environment the standards are not only for poor ordinary users, but also for admins. An admin who is not so careful in his decisions distrup Wiki from functioning as well as a user who do not care about it. Unfairly blocked users are a good exapmle of disruption.

Please take this as my intention for my further activities. Resid Gulerdem 06:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Per your indication that you intend to continue talk page spamming, I have extended your block to 72 hours, starting from now. Regards, Nandesuka 12:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocking me may make you local hero, unfortunately but wouldn't add to your reputation. Wise actions may increase reputation of an admin. I clearly indicated that what I am doing is not spamming. Your defining it that way doen't make sense at all, and doesn't make it spam. You are not the first admin I have seen around who are misusing their priviliges. Fortunately, I know some others who are natural and applying the rules consciously. Resid Gulerdem 18:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Please learn to assume good faith and stop calling every single uninvolved admin who blocks you biased. This can be seen as personal attacks, and for your consistent use of them I have protected your talk page, protection to expire when your block does. NSLE _(T+C) at 01:04 UTC (2006-03-24)

Calling me and others a pro-offense lobby

Hi Resid. Regarding your summary of my (and other editors) position as "a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby" in your recent talk page posts. I take grave offense at this categorisation. I have tried to explain my beliefs to you several times, and I have never stated myself as being pro-porn or pro-offense. I find those terms utterly distasteful. I would be most appreciative if you could please retract these uncivil speculations. That you spread the speculations to so many users talk pages is... well, I'm still trying to work out how exactly I feel. It's very upsetting and personally hurtful. I would appreciate an apology. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Metta Bubble, I did not want to hurt anyone including you. My decision is based on our conversations. If you go back an remember, the point you decided to kill this policy was: ponography. I sincerely asked suggestions, but you misused my trust to empose a statement that simply allow any ponographic image anywhere. You even did not listen what I said afterwords. While I am asking you your suggestions, you did not look for a way that may lead to compromise and insisted on your statements. Moreover you stated the case just the opposite way, everywhere... That make me fell the way I wrote. I do not see any mistake to appologise on this issue. Besides, I do not remember if I called you 'you fool' anywhere anytime. I do not do that not because it is against any Wiki-Miki policy. It doesn't fit my character. Ironically, you can easily call someone 'fool' but talking about civility when you faced to a general classification.

On the other hand, just because you got upset, and just because I do not prefer to make anyone feel bad, I apologise from you that my expressions (right or wrong) caused that strong emotion. And remember, saying peace does not bring peace to anyone, you should rather be a peaceful person. Resid Gulerdem 03:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

@Metta Bubble IMHO pro-porn describes it quite well. "potentially sexually exciting material which is aiming for sexual excitement" ... well, if it's aiming for sexual excitement, why is it only potentially sexually exciting?!? is it pro-bad-porn? Raphael1 03:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raphael. Thanks for your support on the admin pages. I do appreciate for it. Resid Gulerdem 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked you politely to apologise, right? So you repeat the insult, justify it, and then say it wasn't your preference?! You're basically you're saying it's okay to call me "pro-porn" and "pro-offense" even after I warned you I find it highly offensive.

And now your friend is here doing it also?

That I defend someone's right to an opinion does not mean I share their opinion. This is the very basic logic of freedom of speech, and you're defying it with guilt by association. I can't believe I'm trying to explain this to you again...

Here's the short of it. You posted your insult on something like 100 different user talk pages. You also called me a liar close to 50 times. I would like you to you please post a message to all those 100 or so users retracting your highly offensive statements labelling other editors as "pro-porn" and "pro-offense". I do not consider this request unreasonable, and I note it is not just me who you intended to insult. I am truly sorry for the 1 time I called you a fool. There is no excuse and I apologise unreservedly. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 04:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Going to have to second MB here... the "pro-porn" and "pro-offense" is soooooo far off base in terms of the folks who've been involved with this whole 'policy' (myself included) that a retraction is warranted. I do find it is a bit unreasonable to again post to those 100+ User talk pages (plus it's a bit like re-spamming)... A retraction posted here on this talk page would suffice imho. Netscott 04:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Metta, what I am saying is this: the statements you were trying to stick into the proposal was nothing but a pro-porn in my sight. I am sorry if it hurts you but I am no such intentions - reallly. Plesae consider it as an objective classification. It might be wrong of course, it is my personal opinion. Should I appologise for my personal opinions? Please note that I did not specify any names. So, I do not think that there is a reason for being extra sensitive. Again, I cannot apologise for my ideas and opinions, but if they hurt you, I apologise for it, unconditionally. The very last thing I prefer would be hurting peoples feelings. I do not want go into the reasons I said you are lying once and not telling the truth the other time, as they make things much worse. If that expression made you feel bad, I appologise for it too, unreservedly. Resid Gulerdem 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

A conditional apology is no apology at all. Did I say, "I'm sorry I called you a fool but it's just my opinion"? No, I said, "I'm truly sorry. There's no excuse." Can't you see how insincere your apology comes across? It's like you're choosing to defy WP:CIVIL with impunity. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Metta, I am sincere and I apologize for that my expressions hurt you. But please try to see this, pro-porn is a valid clasification not an insult as the word you used. I understand that you do not like to be in that category, but me thinking so does not put you in that category either. I wish we could stop this and start working as we started at the beginning to do something good for Wiki, together. I am still open to that option, and my arms wide open :) Best... Resid Gulerdem 06:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

See Non-apology_apology ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I just revisited the Wikiethics and I realized that you classified the policy as: 'a dictator's dream'. I am really having hard time to understand you. Are you only sensitive if you are the object of a categorization? Dictator, who do you think he is? Resid Gulerdem 07:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The phrase dictators dream means: "This policy would be ideal for a dictator to use in order to enforce their dastardly ways." It's nothing to do with you. I've given up expecting a WP:CIVIL apology from you. I'm going to work on a Wikipedia:Apology page instead. Do you mind if I quote you? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

General statements cannot be made on a specific example. It requires a big mind and heart. I cannot see if you can propose a policy naturally at this point. I do not see what you mean by :'Do you mind if I quote you?'. It is safer to say NO of course. Resid Gulerdem 18:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikiethics

In reply to your seemingly random message on my talk page:

I wouldn't thank me before you know my stance. I've read through your proposal and take some serious issues with what you're suggesting. It seems to me that you feel wikipedia needs to be "cleaned up" and protected from the "pro-porn and pro-offense" lobby. Frankly I have yet to read an article that was pro-porn or pro-offense, but I'm sure there out there. Maybe I just don't go looking for them. I really don't need to read an article on pornography.

The question of your proposal comes down to this: by what do we measure "visual or verbal descriptions or expressions that are intended to cause sexual excitement?" My sexual excitement is aroused by different things than yours or anyone else's. Are we to create a "standard sexual excitement" test? How would someone determine when "manipulation of information to influence public opinion" is occurring?

This is a very slippery slope indeed, and in my mind it breathes an air of fascism.

I have always been against censorship of almost any sort. Once you allow censorship you allow manipulation.

Jonamerica 03:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment JonAmerica,

If you have a chance to look at the even current form of article you will realize that, it over-emphasis on case by case classification (article basd) and editorial consensus. So far, people are saying that: 'well we cannot describe what if offensive or pornographic, say, so everything is OK'. This policy states that, the editors contributing to an article should be able to determine what is what based on consensus. And in one article a pic might look pornographic-like but for some others it might not. So, rather than posing unnecessary restrictions on the community, as many other policies currently do at this point, this policy gives the right of determination of being 'acceptible' and 'unacceptible' solely to the community. I hope I might make myself more clear. Thanks for giving me this opportunity of further explanation. I am sorry that I cannot post this message to your mailbox simple because I am censored. Apperantly, I do not like censorship either... Resid Gulerdem 04:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page

We started a proposal Wikipedia:Wikiethics to state the existing policies coherently and make suggestions on improving the editorial standards in Wiki. I thought you might be interested in contributing to that proposal.

Unfortunately, a pro-porn and pro-offense lobby is trying to make this proposal a failure. They unilaterally started an approval poll although almost no one including me believe that it is time for a vote, simply because the policy is not ready. It is not even written completely.

Editors who thinks that the policy needs to be improved rather than killed by an unfair poll at the beginning of the proposal, started another poll ('Do we really need a poll at this stage?') at the same time. The poll is vandalized for a while but it is stable now. A NO vote on this ('Do we really need a poll now?') poll will strengthen the position of the editors who are willing to improve the ethics policy further.

If you have concerns about the ethics and editorial standards in Wiki, please visit the page Wikipedia:Wikiethics with your suggestions on the policy. We have two subpages: Arguments and Sections. You might want to consider reviewing these pages as well...

Thanks in advance. Resid Gulerdem 21:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... would it be a violation of Wikiethics to offer a biased vote request like this one? joturner 05:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

No it is not calling you for a bias vote. Do you think Wikipedians are so stupid (sorry for my language...) so that they follow me just because I post this message? I am making myself clear and making my position clear in the messge. Moreover, I am trying to let a specific group of people who might not be aware of the proposal and who might want to know, know about it. Christians and Muslims and other religious groups for example are more interested in ethics than the other people - at least that is how I believe. What is unethical in my sight is: if one hide himeslf behid some flowery statemnts but believes or call for something else. My message clear, mu position in the issue clearly stated. Resid Gulerdem 05:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikipedia already has a decent code of ethics established. The intent of Wikipedia is to provide a wealth of information to the masses for free. Being too ethical (if that's the right word to use) would degrade the quality of Wikipedia and eventually lead to accusations of censorship and bias (as being too ethical would do). Clearly, when corresponding with users, ethics should be at the forefront (which is why we have WP:CIVIL). However, when it gets to article content, as long as the information presented is relevant and not unnecessarily offensive, it should remain. I would like to consider myself, as a Muslim, an ethical person. However, ethics does not always equal piety and sensitivity. I would like to hope that my contributions to Wikipedia benefit the world as a whole, even if it means advocating and working on articles, such as Depictions of Muhammad, that tend to go against my piety and religious and cultural sensitivity in reality. These edits are not done to offend, but to inform; the truth can be ugly.

Unfortunately for you, it appears as though the talk page on Wikipedia:Wikiethics indicates that your proposal is not sitting well with the community as a whole. Creating numerous polls and participating in inappropriate actions (as demonstrated above in your talk page) is going to do little to get your proposal to pass. Indeed, it was a great attempt to encapsulate the code of ethics you believe Wikipedia should follow. However, you must understand that the community consensus is what drives "The Free Encyclopedia". You must learn when you have been defeated. Your leading statement on my talk page (and presumably many others) advocating your proposal demonstates that you will stop at nothing to get your point across. Frankly Resid, that is unethical.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. -- Benjamin Franklin

Peace be upon you and may Allah bless you in this world and the Hereafter. joturner 06:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I think you are missing something in it. For example editorial consensus is what you described above. I am not posing any ethical valur to the people. If they choose to talk about depiction of a riligious person, and if there is a consensus, then what? So what you are saying is true but I am having hard time to understand why you are saying those... I am saddened from your conclusion that my statements demonstrate that I wont stop to get my point accross. I just would recommend you to think about this: a person as you portrayed could invite many people for suggestions and opinions? I think -I do not know whatever sentence is- only leading statement should not be enough to make a decision about what is told overall. Thanks for your comments anyways. I would profited from them, if you choose to contribute the page Wikiethics. Resid Gulerdem 06:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Salam Resid ... I,m really sorry for this late response , actually i was away from wiki for few weeks ... and I think u did already great jop in writing the proposed wikiethics . but I think the current western understanding of what they call "Freedom" contradicts with anything could be called "Ethics" or "Respect" . and you can see that everywhere in the discussion of Cartoons controversy and the discussion of Wikipedia:Censorship ... so I think any call of some Ethics would be considered by religous secularists as censorship ... yes I consider secularsim and atheism another kinds of religion held by the current western societies ... How to make solution of this contradiction ?? I really have no idea till now ... but it is good to keep discussing these issue's .. Peace --Chaos 12:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chaos, thanks for sharing your thoughts with me. I would appreciate for your contributions to the discussion at Wikiethics. I am sure we all will profited from your ideas. Thanks again. Resid Gulerdem 18:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Image inlining straw poll

• There is a straw poll at Talk:Lolicon regarding linking an image vs. displaying it. Best, Johntex\^talk 21:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Developing 'your' WikiEthics policy

Resid, please take my following text as concil:

The approach you've demonstrated regarding the WikiEthics policy you founded has been less than ethical relative to currently established WikiPedia policies and guidelines. As a result of this, I'm nearly 100% sure that if you attempt to further develop the WikiEthics policy outside of your user space you will have fellow editors who will actively work against it. I would strongly recommend that you transfer everything that has so far been developed in regards to WikiEthics to your user space (ie: User:Rgulerdem/Wikiethics) and invite fellow editors to work on it from there until it has enough maturity in your mind. As you've demonstrated already (particularly relative to Metta Bubble), you exhibited WP:OWN while formulating the WikiEthics policy. Additionally, I'm also nearly 100% certain that if you don't follow this advice you will once again encounter highly frustrating resistance from the community as you work on it. Netscott 01:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• An additional council would be to avoid the usage of the term "Policy" while formulating WikiEthics but instead utilize "Guidelines". You are likely to encounter less resistance with such terminology. Obviously once guidelines are established it is easier for them to become "Policy". Netscott 02:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nothing's changed for me... but I'm commenting based upon what I've observed and the WikiEthics talk page. Netscott 02:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

I'd have liked to email you during the latest block, but you hadn't provided an email address. If you'd like to email me, that could set up a channel of communication just in case.

As you will have gathered, you have arrived at Wikipedia at a very sensitive time. There has been some recent Christian activism here that was completely inappropriate, and served only to give the Gospel a black eye. One Christian user is now under a one year ban as a result of his ill-advised activities. This is a severe measure, and shows enormous (and IMO justified) displeasure on the part of the community here.

The net result has just been to put another barrier between many Wikipedians and Christ.

So I'd suggest you tread very carefully, both for your own sake and for that of the Gospel. Many of us find Wikipedia's policies and culture very affirming of our faith. But IMO we are in a position that we must ourselves be better than fair in order to get a fair go, for reasons I perhaps won't explore further here. This is of course not an unfamiliar position for many Christians!

If I can help in any way, drop me a line. Andrewa 11:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your post to my user talk page. I apologise if it sounds above as though I'm assuming you are a Christian.

It was more that IMO some of the hostility you have encountered is carried over from the the Jason Gastrich disaster and I think you should know about that. I also assume you would not want people to reject Christianity (or anything else) for the wrong reasons. I think that's a reasonable assumption from your user page.

I notice you have an interest in Philosophy of Mathematics. That's an area in which we need more input IMO, but again tread carefully. Check out Wikiproject Mathematics and be warned that for some of these Wikipedians, Mathematics is a religion. (;-> Andrewa 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

I apologise RG, I have refactored your personal attacks again here. If you would like to turn your accusations into statements of fact, you need to take them to ARBCOM, not insult me on a talk page. Please refrain from further violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. There is nothing in it for you and the policies are non-negotiable on Wikipedia. If you truly wish to not offend, simply leave the refactored comments alone. Please accept my best wishes for your fresh start. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 06:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I apologise. I've had to refactor your "tongue in cheek" apology. Please refrain from poking fun at the situation. I've cleared up anything that seemed to be offending you and removed the term "personal attack". The link I provided is acceptable and it is not an attack on you, but rather a clearly layed out assessment of behaviour. If you insist on getting involved in another revert war I'm sure you realise it will result in you being blocked yet again. If there's anything to discuss please let me know. Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 11:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Previous council

Resid, my previous council might be best to follow as already several editors have expressed their view rejecting outright the continuation of work on the WikiEthics policy. Sincerely, Netscott 01:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Resid, thank you for responding to my message here. I disagree with the proposal in it's entirety... and don't honestly and in good faith see how it could ever be reworked. As far as striking your comments is concerned it's because they do not correspond to the terms of the "Approval Poll". Netscott 02:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Assuming your warning was done in good faith I thank you for that... however your warning is invalid. Netscott 02:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

3R warning on Summary of Approval Poll

Just a friendly reminder to inform you that you are at your revert limit on Summary of Approval Poll. Thanks. Netscott 02:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

False 3RR report

Hello Resid, you might want to self-revert and remove your false and inaccurate 3RR violation report. Admins don't take kindly to having to research false alarms. Just a friendly suggestion. Netscott 03:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that I've improperly struck your previous comments then I invite you to file a report on WP:AN stating so. Netscott 03:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation notification

Resid, please be aware of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Rgulerdem. Netscott 03:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 3 hours for violating the three revert rule. Please discuss your summary with Netscott and come to a consensus before you start another edit war. I would also like to point out that stating the outcome of that poll was that "the draft put into a vote is not ready for being a policy and it needs to be improved" is incredibly misleading -- most of the oppose votes noted there was no need for the Wikiethics policy at all or that it duplicated already existing policies and was instruction creep -- I urge you to seriously reconsider that summary and as has been asked, more accurately reflect the outcome of the poll. I appreciate all the time and effort that you put in to the policy, but community consensus is rather clear on this matter. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 04:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)