User talk:Rgulerdem/Archive 4 (Apr 27, 06)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 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 ask 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 ask 00:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Wikiethics
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Nacon kantari  e |t||c|m 00:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for violation of 3RR - Wikiethics
Dear Rgulerdem: Regretfully, I have been forced to block you for 24 hours as a result of your persistent revert warring on 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article, be it an article or a proposed Wikipedia 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; Wikipedia 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/wiki/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. NSL E (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. NSL E (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 - gives you the page name, for exaple on this page you would get "Rgulerdem" by typing  in. NSL E  (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. NSL E (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 Wikipedia indefinitely under the "Users that exhaust the community's patience" clause within Blocking policy. Please, please, use this chance wisely - I strongly suggest you stay away from the Wikiethics page entirely as this appears to be the primary focus of your misbehaviour on Wikipedia. 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)


 * Blocking_policy NSL E (T+C)(seen this?) at 06:52 UTC (2006-04-10)

I have indefinitely blocked you for repeated violations of any number of Wikipedia policies over many months and many blocking admins. You show no signs of trying to improve, and even when given your final warning, just above, you responded with more of the same. I haven't really been involved with you before and just kind of ran across this and realized, do what is good for the Wikipedia community ... enough is enough. --Cyde Weys 07:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your e-mail
Hello, as you requested in your e-mail, I have taken a quick look at your situation. It is not immediately clear to me exactly what you did to get banned, but it is clear there is sizable support for the ban. You claimed that there are two people at WP:ANI that do not support the ban, but I don't see evidence of that when I look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Indefinite_block_of_Rgulerdem. I guess it may be true that two posters did not specifically say they "support" or "approve" the block, but their comments do not give me any impression they oppose it. I am interested in helping anyone to avoid an indef block if it was unjustified, but you're going to have to give me more help than that. For example, on ANI, it is alleged that all your edits in the article space are edit warring. Can you point to any positive contibutions you have made? By positive, I mean anything that did not go against consensus and did not get reverted? Johntex\talk 00:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Rgulerdem, I am temporariliy un-protecting this page so that you may post here information about your positive contributions to Wikipedia. I warn you that (1) you must not remove any of the previous discussion, warnings, templates, etc.  (2) you must not make any remarks which could possibly be construed as personal attacks, or which could possibly be seen as being uncivil.  Stick to the positive about what you feel you have contributed to Wikipedia.
 * I make no guarantees about any shortening of the block. At this moment, opinion is strongly in favor of an indef block.  Your user page may be re-protected at any time if you abuse the privilege to post here. Johntex\talk 15:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

A response

 * Hi John, thanks for your understanding and looking to the case closer. The page was protected against the standards established here in Wiki. Can you imagine that: I could not defend myself while some people were making unfair accusations.


 * I have something to say:


 * I cannot see any base for an indefinite block other than ideological hatred. I cannot see a solid reason for it.


 * I should accept that I might violate the letter of some rules. I hope you are able to see that I did not violate the spirit of Wiki policies as explained below. I proposed a policy, tried to keep it alive up until ready for community approval poll, asked people who would like to destroy it to discuss first. They violated the spirit of Wiki by using edit summaries as discussion page, blanking the page by deleting some sections they dislike, adding some statements which change the whole course of the proposal, for example, from pro-ethic to pro-porn, acting together against an editor trying to propose a policy which is also violation of the spirit of chivalry, making uncivil comments, misusing their admin privileges, misusing their experience to force a new editor being blocked by an admin member of the group, etc...


 * I have never made uncivil comments nor have such intentions: it is simply against my personality, not because Wiki doesn't not allow it. If you check the talk page carefully you will see that I even apologized from an editor who insulted me earlier who think that a statement I made, made him feel bad, not because my statements were incorrect or uncivil. The whole history is sitting here, all my contributions can be viewed. Insults and offence are due to mental disorder, I believe, caused by lack of ideas and empathy.


 * When I answer accusations about me, some people are considering that as personal attack. I am tired of these kind of unfair accusation and characterizations. I have no interest in attacking anyone. If a person doing something wrong, misusing his privileges, I say it is wrong and unfair for sure, whatever the consequence is.


 * I realized that there is no reasonable control on the administrative actions. Unfortunately, I have encountered very few, but very bad examples who tend to distort the facts into a form that support their actions. It is not health at all, in long run, for Wiki. My block for example was totally unfair, unjustified, discretionary action. My talk page was even blocked so that I could not defend myself.


 * The bottom line which should alarm the people who really believe in Wiki and philosophy behind it is this: As an ordinary user, I could not propose a policy and could not find a chance to ask for community approval. It can be the worst idea ever, but me proposing a statement does not make it a policy: it should be approved first. Where is the 'free speech' and where is the supporters of it? At a very early stage of the proposal, a user decided to put it into a vote, hoping that half-written proposal cannot get an approval, which is not surprising to anyone at all. Then by some other people, the proposal and the discussion page are vandalized repeatedly.


 * By the way, by 'some people', I mean the same few: User:NSLE, who was misusing his privileges to block my account many times. He was using my block list to justify his cause later (see [WP:ANI]]) and providing a reason for further blocks. Is that fair? He was deleting my comments on other admin talk pages; I was complaining about his actions. He was reverting my edits on both the discussion page and the Wikiethics page itself to support his group after I am blocked. The others are User:Pegasus who started the approval poll at the early stage to kill the process, User:Netscott who vandalized the poll I started and started edit wars while reporting my edits on WP:3RR page as violation of the rule. He was using his experience and my lack of experience to make me blocked. User:Metta Bubble who was also doing the same trick to make me blocked. Ironically he decided to leave after his first block while hoping longer blocks for me. He even prepared a separate page for me but by distorting the facts and misinterpreting what has really happened. I would still prefer his continuing to edit here though. All I wanted from these people along the way is the first rule I have learned in Wiki editing: 'discuss before edit'. It should not be surprising that, the same people are wishing for indefinite block on WP:ANI. It is not surprising that the same people was crying after User talk:Metta Bubble after his decision to leave. I think, because they are side of this dispute, their support for an indefinite block should be questioned. What can be the reason, really, that they are very determined to block me from editing?


 * Ironically, I am accused with violation of WP:OWN. Everybody involved know that I repeatedly announced the page on Village pump, and informed many people individually. It is later accused of being kind of spamming. I started a discussion on WP:AN about it, but there was no any administrative consensus on its being spamming at all. A person portrayed such, if real, would not invite others for editing...


 * The final warning on this page at the first place was not fair. I asked the admin reconsider it. I cannot see why the admin do not want to bring this issue to the arbitration committee as a last resort but try to decide himself? Isn't banning a user indefinitely a serious enough issue to raise to the arbitration committee? What is that committee for then? And the admin who blocked me indefinitely states that: 'he just encountered the dispute and decided to block indefinitely'. I wish he could find some time to look at the case carefully. I do not have children at his/her age yet, but it is very well possible that some students of mine teaching him at his college. I hope he can use some time to think before using the last option in the future. I checked his block list and he has a long one I should say. If I call this misuse of the privileges, will someone come and tell me that it is uncivil? Does blocking provide some sort of satisfaction? If an admin is looking for good of Wiki he should think twice when blocking an academician indefinitely.


 * I did contribute on quite a few articles here, as listed on my User page (You should go check the history as there is a template now). For example, I started Interfaith dialogue which is merged onto Interfaith later. I continued editing on it after that too. I also started Gulen's movement a social phenomena and planning to improve. I edited a great deal to Fethullah Gulen page, which caused some edit wars at the beginning, but evolved to the current version. All the later edits support my version which is not reverted significantly after the edit war. Please note that I am editor for last 3-4 months and the accomplishments I listed is satisfactory in my opinion. I am also an active member of Turkish Wiki, at which I started 3 portals, started and edited quite a few articles, templates, etc.


 * Let me say that, I can provide the diffs for my claims above, if needed. They are actually well documented on this page and archives. Thanks for your time and considerations on this unpleasant issue. I am looking for and unblock and correction of this discretionary action. I am hoping that the community will stand up for the rights of a member against the unblanced use of the power and privileges. Resid Gulerdem 18:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Rgulerdem. Thank you for your reply. I must emphasize that it is not up to me to unilaterially reverse this blocking.  I am merely helping you have your case heard.  I plan to take no immediate action myself except to spend some time reading your statement above, and to see if anyone else replies here to it.  Depending on my reading of your reply and any comments that are made over the next few days, then I may consider taking some action, such as requesting your case be heard by arbitration. Johntex\talk 18:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are very wellcome and thanks for giving me this opportunity. If blocking indefinitly can be made based on personal decision, unblocking could be done so as well. But anyways, I am sure you will chose the most reasonable course. I would appreciate if you could link this response on the WP:ANI page as well for the reference of community, if possible. Best, Resid Gulerdem 19:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If it was one editor who wants to block vs one who wants to unblock, perhaps unblocking would be a possibility. Even that, however, could lead to a wheel war and so it would not be desirable.  In this case, however, there are numerous people who support your blocking.  I will link this on WP:ANI as well.  A new section will have to be created because the old section has now been archived. Johntex\talk 19:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right, and I can see that. But please note that they are the very same few people who are the side of this dispute as I explained above. Thanks for the link. Resid Gulerdem 19:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Resid: If you're just going to use this opportunity to troll me about my blocks of you, then I'm going to reprotect your page and request that JohnTex send this case to ArbCom. Do not make me do that. NSL E (T+C)(seen this?) at 00:21 UTC (2006-04-15)
 * Dear NSLE, listen: I am not trolling you about anything, I am talking about what has happened. If talking about what has happened is trolling, doing those mentioned is an unforgivable mistake. Please note that, I am not editing here in Wiki based on your mercy. If I were you I would quit this threatening-style talks as it does not work. Thanks... Resid Gulerdem 07:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

For continued incivility and trolling, I have re-protected your user talk page, and left Johntex a message. NSL E (T+C) at 08:44 UTC (2006-04-15)

Request for Arbitration
Rgulerdem, I have opened a request for arbitration on your behalf here: Requests_for_arbitration. I believe you have acted badly in the past. I just feel that an indefinite block is a very serious matter and I think you deserve more of a chance to be heard. Johntex\talk 03:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

New ANI thread
I've asked for a review of the indefinate ban and have unprotected your talk page. - brenneman  {L}  00:14, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents


 * Thanks Aaron... Resid Gulerdem 20:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have posted my thoughts at ANI, and am cross-posting them here for posterity: NSL E (T+C) at 01:41 UTC (2006-04-26)

"I would agree to letting him back in if he abides by those terms, but only on the condition that the first violation he commits he's back on his indef block without a warning. He should have been warned enough to know what not to do. I will not reprotect his user talk unless he, again, starts trolling or being incivil - at which point my opinion on this chance for him will go down the drain and I will reject this. NSL E (T+C) at 01:42 UTC (2006-04-26)"

Congratulations
I would like to start with saying 'thank you' to all involved admins including NSLE! And ordinary users, primarily, to Netpari. Now regarding the 'unblock', it will be correction of a big mistake in my opinion. This project will be benefited from it at the first place. So, congratulations for taking that step. Hopefully sooner...

I agree on mentorship of Johntex as he is one of the most reasonable person I see around, fortunately not the only one. I used to be a mentor but it should be just fine to be a mentee in Wiki too. We are always learning something...

And a message to NSLE: Dear NSLE, it does not make any difference if my talkpage is protected or unprotected, my account is blocked or unblocked if you keep following the same approach: If you call anything I said and you disliked 'incivil' and 'trolling', and using it to take further actions, you are not leaving me any room to live in... Please note that, I have never been uncivil to you or anybody else. It is not because of Wiki policies, it is against my personality. I can express myself without offending anyone, I am able to do that, even on the issues I dislike. Can I ask you please stop watching my steps here simply because you are very involved in this issue and in my opinion -no offense- taking it personally? I would much prefer if you keep away from my edits as there are many others to save Wiki. Will you do that?

Thanks again all... Resid Gulerdem 20:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Why are you blocked again? Is it because you asked NSLE not to watch your steps? Raphael1 20:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Raphael, thanks for visiting my talk page and for your note on ArbCom page. I have quite a few people, at least as much as the ones support the indefinite block, both from admins and users, think that the indefinite block was not fair. Unfortunately it is mentioned as community supported block by some people; apperantly definition of consensus and community changes per person. Regarding your specific question about specific admin, I gotta be really cereful about answering it ;) When my account gets unblocked, I think I will start an article: ideological intolerance. That is the kindest name I could come up with... Resid Gulerdem 22:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When is that going to happen? Raphael1 22:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

They are talking about it at this point. Hopefully soon... --Resid
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents

Have you seen the new proposal NOT evil? I guess, you don't like that either. "Any article should not, however, by itself, strive to be actively good" sounds somewhat demonic to me. :-) Raphael1 00:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)