Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:13, 9 April 2006

Archive

Archive 1 (Feb 14, 06)

Archive 2 (Mar 18, 06)

Archive 3 (Mar 26, 06)

New Messages

You can leave your messages below this line...

Wikiethics

It is hard to determine what is right and wrong in this age of globalization when everyone's perspective is different if not diametrically opposed. In laying down a code of ethics on Misplaced Pages you will restrict the rights of human beings to freely express themselves. I suggest letting authors write as they please but their work could be password protected or restrictively accessed by those whom Misplaced Pages allows. Netpari 23:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Netpari, thanks for the note. The important think I believe is, to set all the differences you mentioned aside and do something good together. There are common values of humanity: universal values. We can and should be able to write an ensyklopedia which is from very definition open to the public, based on these values. I am not trying to restrict anybody's right, but just trying to formulate or write some standards to which everybody can commit or already committed himself/herself. I simply cannot think of an ensyklopedia without ethical considerations and standards. Resid Gulerdem 04:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello there. You must be a utopian to think ethical relativism can be effaced by setting global standards. Okay, I'm for it if *everyone* who logs in agrees to these values and there is a provision for any disagreement to be worked out. If people have already committed themselves to certain ideals that you claim are universal, there should not be any discord.Netpari 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Good. You might consider reading the proposal Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics and see if there are parts you think need to be improved then. You can use subpages Sections for discussion or you can drop couple of lines to my talk page. That is how we can eliminate disagreements if there is any. I think some people considering the case at the personal level which is causing some trouble. It is hard to expect the same level of maturity from everyone. I am pretty sure that people who really like the philosophy behind Wiki and trying to do something good here will support that idea sooner or later. It requires some time... Resid Gulerdem 03:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello! I was just reading your archives and could'nt help but notice that you seem to have gotten yourself into a tiff on quite a few occasions with the admins. Your responses have been very civil and polite and you expect the same from others. These are emotions and behavior Rgulerdem; They cannot be quantified and measured to be administered exactly in the same amount. Some people are more insensitive than others as a result of nature or nurture. Your policy of "Treat others as you would like to be treated" would not hold good.

BTW this would be a good start for your philosophy of mathematics article. Man realized that sensory perceptions are relative so he wanted to set a uniform standard of measurement. Voila! Mathematics was born. Just kidding!

I was also curious as to how you chanced upon my page. I try to keep a low profile since I do not wish to get entangled in any controversies at this point in time. Yawn! G'bye. Netpari 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words and I understand your concerns in terms of keeping up with lower profile. How I found you: I checked the categories, Christian and Muslim Wikipedians. I couldn't do it with other religious groups and other groups who might be sensitive in regard to the ethical issues because I am blocked and there is an ongoing discussion about it. If you could list some concerns, if any, about the policy to my talk page that would be very beneficial too. Thanks anyways... Resid Gulerdem 04:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Be aware my edit summaries explained my changes to the text. The vandal warning you gave was not justified and another will result in you being reported to an Administrator. Be aware of the WP:OWN policy in the future. Thank you. -M 00:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your disruptive edits

You have been reported to an administrator, and if you continue will be writtin up on AN/I. -M 00:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 00:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for violation of 3RR - Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics

Dear Rgulerdem: Regretfully, I have been forced to block you for 24 hours as a result of your persistent revert warring on Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics. The three-revert rule, WP:3RR, states that no user may revert a page, in whole or in part, more than three times within twenty-four hours; although you state in edit summaries that your reverting is exempt from 3RR due to vandalism reversion, the changes you were reverting do not fall under the usual interpretation of simple vandalism. Indeed, it appears to me that you are taking an overly protective stance over the content of the Wikiethics page, and you would do well to step back from it a little. You do not own the Misplaced Pages page, regardless of whether or not you were the original author; others may edit, and indeed remove, material as they see fit to do so in their editorial opinion from any Misplaced Pages article, be it an article or a proposed Misplaced Pages policy. You must permit other editors to change material. In particular, your "vandalism" warnings on User talk:AKMask are inaccurate - vandalism does not equate to "changes I disagree with" - and indeed it is difficult to assume a good faith stance on your part in adding them to the talk page of this user. If you persist in such behaviour you will be blocked again in the future, be it by myself or another administrator. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear User:NicholasTurnbull, I am saddened with your actions. You blocked me and also my talkpage. You deleted my report on vandalism page. If you check the policy, deleting a significant part or the article is also call blanking. 'Editing after discussing' is a standard here and nothing to do with WP:OWN. Do not you think it is better to discuss first? Please see the other admin involde in the issue: he left the same message on both pages at the same tone. Please be more careful when using you previliges. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 03:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Resid: I am sorry you disagree with my actions. I did not prevent you from being able to edit your talk page in any way; your block allowed you to edit your talk page, and I did not protect the page (please verify this from the logs of my protections for yourself) and, indeed, I cannot see any evidence that another admin did so. I have not deleted any page you created to date; I am afraid I am not aware of the "report on vandalism" page you are referring to. You can likewise inspect the log of my deletion actions to confirm that I have not deleted any pages that you created. As for "editing after discussing" - I agree, but there is no rule that states all edits must be discussed first on the talk page, and indeed although I would agree on such a course of action where multiple users disagreed with a particular change it seems clear in this case it was merely you disapproved of any changes being made to the Wikiethics page whatsoever. Although blanking pages is indeed vandalism, the removal of text in the manner of editorial modification is certainly not vandalism. You cannot simply revert changes you dislike, I am afraid; Misplaced Pages does not work like that. Please take this as a lesson, as I will be forced to block you again if you continue such behaviour - and considering that many other admins apart from myself have blocked you on numerous occasions, eventually you may find yourself indefinitely banned by community decision. I would sincerely hope an intelligent individual such as yourself would modify your behaviour to prevent such a course of action being necessary. Regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am so sorry about misinformation, it was not you. My vandalizm report is actually deleted by someone else. Sorry about that again. I do not know who blocked my webpage but I couldn't edit while I was blocked. I will check if someone else did that. I am sorry about saying that you did it without checking carefully. Please accept my apologies for these two mistakes. In regard to reverting the vandalism, I have to say that I will revert it whenever I encounter this kind of behaviour. I am not reverting what I disliked, I am reverting what is unacceptible. I am calling people to discuss first, which is a standard here in wiki. After discussing their ideas, anybody can change the text of course. You should be supporting revertion of vandalism not otherway around, I believe. Sorry again for blaming on you for some wrong-doings you are not related to. Best. Resid Gulerdem 22:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Still Reading

I'm still in the process reading the policy..its a bit vague sometimes but the idea behind it makes sense. I took a break to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Assume_bad_faith Ha! Its funny. Netpari 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Salma, I know my talkpage looks like a battlefield and scary... But I would still appreciate if you could list your concerns here, when you finish reviewing the proposal. Best... Resid Gulerdem 05:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

STOP, please

Hi Resid, please stop mass-spamming talk pages. I'd suggest customising each message, otherwise it's just repetitive spam and will get you blocked for it. NSLE _(T+C) at 03:53 UTC (2006-04-07)

NSLE, this is not spamming. I already opened a discussion on the admin page you know. Noone claims that this is spamming maybe except you. Please note that I am informing a selected group of people who I think might not be aware of the developments on the proposal. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 03:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather than copying and pasting, if you personalise each message it wouldn't be seen as spam. It's like receiving those irritating emails suggesting you get some pills and then you see the same mail has reached 1000 people. That's spam. Personalise it a little, at the very least. C-n-p spam is rarely tolerated. NSLE _(T+C) at 03:59 UTC (2006-04-07)

That's not called personalising it, I meant personalise the text. Changing names is easy, you don't even have to manually do it - {{subst:PAGENAME}} gives you the page name, for exaple on this page you would get "Rgulerdem" by typing {{subst:PAGENAME}} in. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:02 UTC (2006-04-07)

I did personalized each by changing the names. Please be careful in making some new definitions which are not accepted by the community. This is not spamming. Personalizing might be better but requires more time. Resid Gulerdem 04:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

HENCE it wouldn't be seen as spamming. NSLE _(T+C) at 04:07 UTC (2006-04-07)

Resid, you're posting exactly the same message to many different users. Changing the name doesn't make it a different message. You've announced the discussion on the village pump, which is the appropriate place. Please don't post messages to user's talk pages, or you will be blocked. You have been warned and blocked for the very same behaviour before. --bainer (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

bainer, I started a discussion on the admins page WP:AN and there is no admin consensus on this being spamming. I have block for this before and I hope people do not want to repeat the same mistake. Resid Gulerdem 04:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Resid, I cannot find any such discussion. Moreover, regardless of any discussion, Xaosflux, NSLE, myself and now Tony Sidaway (on IRC: "If that guy spams in future, I block him, and I've said so") have warned you not to send any more messages. All admins who have seen these messages are in agreement that this is spam. Do not send any more messages. --bainer (talk) 04:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please look at here. If there is a consensus at the administrative level, please put it into some proposals. That would help better. Thanks. Resid Gulerdem 05:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see now that you've simply continued the discussion from several weeks ago. Regarding proposals, that's certainly something that can be done, but you should know that just because there isn't a specific policy prohibiting a specific action doesn't mean that you are free to do it. Last time, every admin in that discussion agreed that you were spamming, and this time, every admin who has seen the current round of messages agrees that this is spam. --bainer (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not beleive that it is spam. I would like to see it if it is. The only way to do it is looking for some references, and you know that it is not discussed before. If you are so sure about its being spam, could you please tell me how many times post of the same message is considered as spam? Please note that this is a serious issue and I am not playing with words. Discretionary actions of admins are much worse than spamming and I believe that you are not intending to take such actions. From our discussions so far you have my trust. Resid Gulerdem 05:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR block

I have blocked you (again) for violating the three-revert rule. As this was your third violation this week, and as you just returned from your block today, and you continued the same edit war on the same article, and you made even more than 4 reverts, it's clear to me that you aren't getting it. I've made this block for one week. You must use discussion instead of edit warring in the future. Dmcdevit·t 07:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I was planning to post this to the WP:3RR page but blocked before doing so. How blind you are... It is enough to go and check the history that what I am doing is not reverting. It is not any different than what User:Metta Bubble was doing. Blame on you....

As ususal User:Metta Bubble is playing a dirty game. He is reverting destructing the page, and coming here to complain about me. The reason for it to make an admin block me so he can vandalize the page as he wishes. I hope the admins are well aware now about his similar poor behaviours and do not want to be part of a sneaky plan. He is reverting and editing the page without any discussion... Resid Gulerdem 07:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that I've blocked the both of you for incessant edit warring. And I advise you to refrain from such personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith as "How blind you are," "User:Metta Bubble is playing a dirty game," "so he can vandalize the page," "part of a sneaky plan," etc. These aren't okay. You may disagree with another editor's conduct without accusing them of bad faith. I remind you that using your talk page to continue attacks while blocked will result in protection of this page so that you cannot edit it and possibly extension of your block. Dmcdevit·t 08:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK Dmcdevit, I appologise for what I have said about you. This is the second time I am doing similar mistake about admins, unfortunately. That might be because I have seen a few bad examples recently. I was wrong and in the middle of an edit war I think I lost my balance. You got my trust as you are the first person I have seen around who could look at the case carefully and decided accordingly. Well, I should add that MB well-deserved all I said in full. Please check his last comments on the Wikiethics talk page to see why I am correct in saying so. Almost all my blocks are due to this person and two others. While he is editing without discussion I was trying to fix his destructions and allow the ones which are acceptable for the sake of compromise. Isn't discussing before editing a standard here? Now the point is, would you reconsider restricting the block for a day. Thanks in advance... Resid Gulerdem 08:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

By now I am sure you can see who the other two person intentionally caused my blocks are... If you check my block log you will see a dominant figure there... Resid Gulerdem 09:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Final warning - a review of your situation

Dear Rgulerdem: Looking at the block log for your account, 23 blocking actions have been applied to your account by 12 separate administrators, of which 4 were corrections or unblocks; this gives a net 19 distinct blocks that have been applied to your account to date. To be frank with you, many people - including myself - have warned you that your behaviour is unacceptable, and have blocked you accordingly; the time for tolerating your persistent combative and uncooperative attitude is drawing to a close, as this is getting frankly ridiculous. As a consequence, the next time you carry out actions that are deemed worthy of a block by myself or another administrator, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages indefinitely under the "Users that exhaust the community's patience" clause within Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy. Please, please, use this chance wisely - I strongly suggest you stay away from the Misplaced Pages:Wikiethics page entirely as this appears to be the primary focus of your misbehaviour on Misplaced Pages. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Nicholas, I can see sincerety in your message, and I am glad to see it. I will definitely try to be more careful about the case. Regarding what you said above, please note the following: Almost all of my blocks are due to the same 2-3 people. They know how the system works here and are misusing their experience and privilages. If you check my block log carefully you will see a dominant figure there and it should not be surprising to you that you will see the same name as a supporter of User:Metta Bubble on his talk page due to his block. Unfortunately a few other admins are misguided by this well experienced group. Now I do not know why the admins like you (except Dmcdevit who is my young hero in Wiki) are not trying to fix the problem by looking at the case carefully. All I want is that the proposal should not be vandalized. It is definitely open to modification as I invited many people for their contribution publicly. But discussing before editing is a culture here, isn't it? I know you told me before that you also believe so. Actually I think it is discussed in WP:POINT too. My quesation is simple: why you are not warning User:Metta Bubble for example because of his wrong-doing. As an admin it is your responsibility too. As I said, I think your warning reflects some sincerety but to become unbiased I would like to see you also warning MB for his misbehaviour. Can you see my point? That would help to create a better atmosphere as otherwise he will keep vandalising and reverting the proposal and I will need to fix the mess. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 04:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, your title does not look good you may think to change it. It is irrelevant to call this as a final warning. I couldn't find any relevant note in the page you refered me too. Please be more careful in regard to having discretionary actions: "Users that exhaust the community's patience" is not acceptable here. I hope you do not replace your petience with that of the community. Thanks again... Resid Gulerdem 05:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)