Talk:Internet democracy

message: Re: protection of this page, discussion has already been completed (and is archived) regarding the dispute.  There is only one anonymous person who continues to disagree and wreak havoc here.  Since this anonymous person wants to place text in the article that breaks the rules of the Wikipedia, there really is no compromise that can be offered.  Following are those rules (What Wikipedia is not) that the anonymous person breaks with his "Tiaktiv" version of "Internet democracy":
*What Wikipedia is not
**3. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (The anonymous one's admission that his concept is "new" proves that he is evangelizing a concept that is not yet encyclopedic)
**4. Wikipedia is not a means of calling people names or bashing people. (As evidenced in page history and talk, this person is abusing people left and right)
*What Wikipedia entries are not
**6. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. (The anonymous one is advocating for a unique interpretation of "Internet democracy" as coined by himself alone)
**9. Personal essays that state your idiosyncratic opinions about a topic. (Read the archived discussion to see how idiosyncratic the anonymous one's views are)
**10. Primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, etc. (The anonymous one is coining a new term but trying to hijack a term already in existence as evidenced by the proper article)
**18. A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion. (The anonymous one's version contains only one external link pointing to his "Tiaktiv" web site)
I think the evidence clearly shows that the anonymous one has simply become intransigent and is continuing to act in an irrational manner to disrupt a proper Wikipedia article.  And this is despite the many options this person has to properly rectify the situation.  Many suggestions were indeed provided to him to give him ways of getting his ideas out without disrupting this article.  But sadly, these suggestions were ignored and this person has chose instead to berate others and engage in destructive behavior that seems to have no end. -- Stevietheman 13:13, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiaktiv content breaks multiple Wikipedia rules

message: Look Stevie, you pathetic looser. You first did not allow me to create internet democray link, because you said e-democracy fulfills its all demands. Then I said what I have in mind, is a political system, not a bunch of everything. 
You said I have no right to create new concepts and started continuigly deleting whatever I wrote, even thought about voting for deleting this concept. But your friend who belongs to the same group of a worthless semi-idiots decided to create a new falsly concept that never existed before he did it. Then you accepted it, even just two hours before you denided possible existance of internet democracy in any way. 
Now, you and several more idiots who have no life, decided to "protect" your wikipedia, the small world where you pathetic loosers can be free and where you can dictate whatever your vanities decide to do.
This is a very said thing to the World. The thing normal people let you live and do things that do a harm for our society. But, hey! We have to bring our karmas wherever we go. I know your karma is pretty tough one, you idiot. 
One more thing. People who decide to enter this "discussion". First read history of this. I am tired of morons who put their emotions before common sense. 
Gale
----
Thank you, Gale, for proving my points.  Now, let's move on. -- Stevietheman 12:12, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses to rule-breaking

message: Gale, what about answering the interesting question instead of accusing Stevie: Would you abide the decision of the arbitration committee? -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 15:03, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter if you trust the Wikipedia's arbitration committe or not.  They own this "printing press"!  If you can't trust them, you can't trust anybody.  Therefore, I conclude that you know full well that you have no successful arguments to make, and are simply acting destructively. -- Stevietheman 19:07, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Gale, have a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. -- till we ☼☽ | Talk 17:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration? 

message: I would like to make this article a disambiguation page, as it probably always should have been.  It would basically say that Internet democracy has one of the following meanings:
*A derivative, but essentially equivalent term for e-democracy.
*Self-regulation of the Internet and the development of its constituent technologies through "rough consensus and running code," RFCs and expert boards.
*Participation of Internet users worldwide in non-governmental bodies that are setting Internet policy, to advocate that these bodies adhere to principles of open participation, public accountability and human rights.
Any objections to making this a disambiguation page? —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 14:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there were no objections, I made the change.  There was just too much material duplicating what was in the e-democracy article. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 15:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to disambiguation page