Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Plautus satire vs Raul654/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please place evidence here regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Plautus satire vs Raul654

Contents

[edit] User contributions

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire

[edit] Evidence gathered by Raul654 et al

  • User:Evercat/Plautus - some history up till Feb 22 (when I (Evercat) tried to stop being involved).
  • User:Bcorr/Plautus - this page documents the emails I received from him. And a link to an example of similar behavior on another site. BCorr ¤ Брайен 05:03, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence posted by Plautus satire on the wikEN-l mailing list

As Plautus satire is temporarily banned by Jimbo Wales pending outcome of this case and thus cannot add material to this page, I am copying the posts he has made in his defense to the wikiEN-l mailing list, so they may be considered here as appropriate. I have done some minor formatting so they look reasonable in wikitext. --Delirium 04:46, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] rebuttal

I intend to use this forum to present my defense. My primary contention is that I was banned due to a perversion of the discuss-mediate-arbitrate-ban process, which henceforth I will refer to as the "paint by numbers ban procedure". In my defense I will attempt to explain clearly and succinctly why I feel this process was perverted, nay, subverted, and in particular how my attempt to use this process to peacefully settle disputes was perverted and turned against me.

[edit] disclaimer

While I do not feel it is relevant, since I have been challenged, I intend to post numerous examples and cite them to wikipedia pages where I was treated with hostility and responded with civility, where I was greeted with changes and corrections and responded with gratitude.

I do not think that is an appropriate use of this forum, as the page histories are all clearly still there, but since it seems some of my critics are unwilling to do the required reading to be informed on this issue I feel only if there are strong objections will I refrain from fully making my case here.

[edit] My case against Curps? Curps admitted harassing me, stated it boldly on the requests for mediation page

***BEGIN QUOTE***

Rick wrote:

> So where is the Wikipedia jail? Right now, the accuseds are allowed > to continue what they were doing, willy-nilly.

To summarize the matters currently under consideration:

* Plautus Satire is currently temp-banned for a week pending a decision

in his case, as Jimbo did so, and there was significant consensus that this should be done.

***END QUOTE***

My case? The only case I'm involved in that has reached mediation is my case against Curps. Curps has been harassing me and I have largely been trying to work around it, but it became to cumbersome so I sought assistance.

Curps is the defendant, I am the claimant.

Why is the process being ignored here?

Nobody has contacted me regarding anyone else's requests for mediation.

Why is the process being ignored here?


Curps announced his intention in the request I initiated involving his abuse.

The first version was titled "3 Curps v. Plautus satire"

The text follows:

***BEGIN QUOTE***

Curps v. Plautus satire I would like to request some outside intervention for a situation that has arisen. The user Curps seems intent on reversioning every edit I make, without explanation in the summaries or on talk pages. I've made several changes to entries recently, and all of them seem to have been reverted by Curps, so either he is watching the same pages I am, or watching my contributions, and reversioning them without explanation. I would like for somebody to epxlain to Curps that he needs to discuss reversions, especially if he is going around unmaking everything one user (me) does. - Plautus satire 01:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) Curps reversions of Plautus satire as shown by page histories:[2][3][4][5] [6][7]

***END QUOTE***

I am reluctant to disclose the details of my attempts to get mediation with respect to Curps' abuse, because the other participants have demanded they remain secret.

[edit] What is said during mediation sessions is private, and won't be disclosed without agreement of all parties.

If you don't like this, then change it:

[3]

This is straight out of wikipedia policy on mediation. I hate to be blunt, but who will argue this with me? I think you may now all stand down.

This is patently ridiculous, people.

[edit] I initiated the mediation

I initiated the mediation.

Curps refuses to let the proceedings be open, thus, Curps is refusing mediation.

Curps is abusing me, he admitted it, I have now superfluosly and redundantly proven it.

Why is the process being ignored?

[edit] Privacy of mediation is optional, not a requirement for mediation. I brought the mediation request, I want it open.

I initiated this process, why am I being treated like the defendant when I am the claimant?

Why is the process being ignored here?

There is no requirement of secrecy in mediation. I do not wish it and do not intend to abide by secrecy. Curps has refused this condition, thus he refuses mediation, thus my case against him should go to arbitration.

[edit] personal curiosity; escalation to arbitration

Plautus Satire wrote:

Because it is irrelevant to my defense.

But it's completely relevant. I just wrote about it to the list, actually. The fact that you would simultaneously insult me while asking me for a rehearing is *exactly* relevant to the situation.

You're a complete and total asshole, and getting rid of you will be a great joy.

You may attempt to divert the discussion to issues having to do with your crackpot pseudo-scientific theories, but those are not the real issue. The real issue is your insulting behavior towards me and towards others who have tried to help you.

You seem completely oblivious to that behavior, though, so I don't suppose there's any hope for your change. I've told you several times today in simple language what the problem is, and it's as if you're completely deaf to what I'm saying.

--Jimbo

[edit] explanation: arbitration escalation

I would also like to point out another thing about which I tried to remind Mr. Wales. I brought up the fact that I initiated the only known (to me) process of mediation that has accorded with wikipedia policy. Since then that request has been hijacked by those who wish to ban me using the paint-by-numbers-ban procedure(1).

(1) Paint-by-numbers-ban procedure is a characterization by Plautus satire of the current wikipedia guidelines involving resolution of dispute. Paint-by-numbers-ban procedure is not a term recognized by wikipedia proper.

[edit] List of productive contributions to Wikipedia

The following entries in wikipedia are there because I put them there, and they remain largely intact. The talk page histories of many of these pages show my collaborative efforts in bringing them up to snuff from my original small entries.

This list may not be comprehensive.

Codie Vickers

(P.S.: In case I forgot to post the link to the page history for my original request for mediation in the matter of Curps' admitted abuse, here it is: [4])

[edit] Relevant passages in tornado

The following is a partial, selective audit trail of a recent conflict that was thrust on me by other users. I post links only to my own changes.

  • [5] added association of tornadoes with plasma glow discharge in atmosphere
  • [6] inserted accompanying electromagnetic phenemona associated with tornadoes
  • [7] inserted observed radio emissions from tornadoes and associated (implied) electrical discharges
  • [8] (until a better explanation than "no." arises) reinserted observed radio emissions and implied plasma discharges (tornado lightning) and cited
  • [9] added similarity of tornado lightning to fluorescent bulbs, cited reference for tornado lighting (also other plasma effects of tornadoes not inserted into entry; point discharge, plasmoids, etcetera))
  • [10] added plasmoids and point discharges to known phenomena associated with tornadoes
  • [11] rewording of second paragraph, addition of various observed plasma and electromagnetic phenomena associated with tornadoes
  • [12] reworded opening of second paragraph, citation supporting observed plasma and electromagnetic phenomena associated with tornadoes
  • [13] additional citation, reference to other well-known plasma effects observed in association with tornadoes
  • [14] added nocturnal tornadoes and citation
  • [15] added reference to rRetired U.S. Army captain Roy S. Hall's family encounter with interior of tornado, cited
  • [16] reworded passage about multiple funnels
  • [17] addition of fowl killed and plucked by tornadoes
  • [18] clarification of wind plucking falsification
  • [19] addition of observed cellular structure inside tornadoes
  • [20] -have
  • [21] reinsertion of electromagnetic phenomena as a result of the plasma arcing going on inside tornado, despite Curps insistence that tornadoes are not ass. with these

I now cite below the first change I made (that started this "war") before I was banned for continuing to advocate on the talk pages for my last edition.

***BEGIN QUOTE***

A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. The word "tornado" comes from the Spanish verb "tornar", meaning "to turn." Tornadoes accompany (and obscure) plasma glow discharges in the atmosphere similar to the discharge in a fluorescent light bulb. Nocturnal tornadoes offer opportunity to observe this glow discharge[22].

It is spawned by a supercell thunderstorm (or sometimes as a result of a hurricane) and produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly.

***END QUOTE***

Now I cite the extant entry.

***BEGIN QUOTE***

A tornado is a violent windstorm characterized by a twisting, funnel-shaped cloud. The word "tornado" comes from the Spanish verb tornar, meaning "to turn."

It is spawned by a supercell thunderstorm (or sometimes as a result of a hurricane) and produced when cool air overrides a layer of warm air, forcing the warm air to rise rapidly. Tornados are sometimes associated with lightning. Many tornadoes are the tail end of a mesocyclone and they have a characteristic "hook echo" signature on a radar screen.

***END QUOTE***

Note that this current entry says that tornadoes are spawned by thunder (lightning) storms, and also says they are only "sometimes" "associated with" lightning. Is this accurate?

I think everyone can judge which of these entries is more factual and complete.

Codie Vickers

[edit] Curps solution to a nonexistent problem. Is it time for mediation yet?

Tornado plasma hypothesis

This is Curps' "solution" to the "problem" of his vague notions about tornadoes. Move all references to electricity associated with tornadoes to another entry for NPOV. Huh?

Here is the audit trail for this dangling participle left in wikipedia like a whithered seedling stomped under a jackboot:

(cur) (last) . . 02:25, 26 Feb 2004 . . Curps (add intro sentence, wording similar to "laser star hypothesis" intro) (cur) (last) . . 01:15, 26 Feb 2004 . . Curps (material moved here from Tornado page, as per discussion with user Lir)

Huh? Add intro sentence, wording similar to laser star hypothesis? What's this? Oh, right, the laser star hypothesis which was introduced to eliminate all mention of quasars observed to be lasing to observe NPOV.

[edit] Open source journalism was not there before Plautus satire put it there? Is this a conspiracy?

These entries were also initiated by Plautus satire, and remain largely unmolested by troubled people such as Curps.

What's this? An entry for open source journalism did not exist before Plautus satire entered it? Why has it remained? Plautus satire cites Slashdot and an obscure periodical only, yet this entry remains unchallenged.

Who will be the first to step up and call open source journalism one of Plautus satire's "conspiracy theories"?

Codie Vickers

[edit] The devil's advocate does not make deals with the devil

I think I've demonstrated quite clearly to all that I wish to continue and am capable of and more than willing to engage in improving wikipedia for the betterment of us all. Yes, we are all volunteers, and what we are volunteering is our effort to make this a great project for one man who is now paying us for that work by allowing us to stay here.

[edit] Sincere thanks

Look at all the busy little beavers watching this "case", who are now merrily improving wikipedia by expanding and glorifying my contributions. I want to thank all concerned for showing such faith in my tedious contributions that you wish to add to them and make them even better. It speaks volumes of the confidence in me which you display so openly.

[edit] If you are perfect, please identify yourself

I cite here an example where I committed a minor breach of faith, I mocked another user. If I remember correctly, this was in response to a comment I made, I asked in an edition summary if SheikYerBooty was a human being or a poorly-designed AI. I admit this was glib, but I only meant if he were a cleverly-designed AI I wouldn't suspect he was an AI.

***BEGIN QUOTE***

Please refrain from mocking other users. Review Wikiquette when you can. Thanks! Kingturtle 06:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good advice, Kingturtle. All I can say is it's all meant in fun, I mean no disrespect. - Plautus satire 06:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC) OK. Fair enough :) Kingturtle 06:26, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

***END QUOTE***

As you can see here, I realized I may have inadvertantly offended somebody, perhaps SheikYerBooty's talk page would have been the place for me to discuss it with him but he didn't comment on my edition summary so I didn't think it had offended him.

[edit] Is it just me, or are these people scrambling very hard to find "the goods" on me?

Is it just me, or are these people scrambling very hard to find "the goods" on me? I submit if it's this difficult, it's not worth pursuing, time would be better spent finding a compromise.

***BEGIN QUOTE***

Plautus, your constant manipulations of talk pages is not going to work. I will check every edit you make and revert them when I see moving other people's comments around. You've been asked not to do this and it's been pointed out many times that it's a violation of accepted practice. So cut it out. --SheikYerBooty 06:13, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

It's not a violation of accepted practice to organize a thread so it's coherent instead of one long incoherent ramble. - Plautus satire 06:20, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Maybe check out the Big Bang talk page.. Plautus hasnt touched it in a while, and another user has completely moved things around, almost even more incoherent. I swear that some paragraphs of mine have been removed.. odd too, since I try to write with grace, clarity, and references. I dont know what Plautus has been up to, but its obvious he is not the only one who edits talk pages. -Ionized 23:38, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Correction, my paragraphs where not erased, just moved. Im trying to piece togethor the original order again. -Ionized 00:08, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

***END TRANSCRIPT***

This little exchange reminds me of a recent blunder, where I accused silsor of deleting pages to cover a setup of me. I quickly learned this was an erroneous belief and I immediately retracted it and tried to lessen the effect of that nonsense.

Should we all be punished similarly for the same acts? Perhaps these two are good candidates for a ban... I doubt it, but "try it, it might work" seems to be the attitude of some.

[edit] CC of email sent to Mr. Wales and MyRedDice

I have accepted Tuf-Kat as a moderator and Tuf-Kat informed me that Curps would not participate in moderation over his vigilante actions unless 1. Raul654 was also involved and unless 2. the moderation was kept secret.

I do not accept Curps' conditions, so to follow the guidelines it should go to arbitration, with Curps as the defendant for his admitted vigilante action, and me as the claimant or injured party.

How this got turned into a ban for me is truly mysterious. If you look at the request I initiated, the section contains many statements from me, all of which state quite clearly that I intended to seek mediation with Curps for his vigilante action, and he admitted he did it.

The case seems open and shut to me. All of my statements in that section (my request for mediation) and the compendium I added to remind everyone which quoted the relevant statements I made confirm what I say is true.

Why is the process being ignored here? I am the claimant or injured party? Why am I the one being punished?

[edit] Drowning Man v. Two Swimming Men

If I recall correctly, a certain user named Ed Poor had a campaign spring up to ban him when he was discovering wikipedia. I suspect this is because he is able to easily (if tediously) and effectively and most importantly convincingly construct very compelling arguments while simultaneously being able to deconstruct opposing arguments.

I postulate that because he is able to do this so easily, he was perceived as a threat. A threat to existing knowlege (are we all ignorant or is Ed Poor?), a threat to authority (who do we believe, the newspaper or Ed Poor?), a threat to wikipedia (should wikipedia be a forum for Ed Poor to post facts?).

Did Ed Poor ever make a mistake in his life? I don't know Ed Poor, but I can categorically state "yes". And I will make similar statements about us all if necessary, and then make my case for my belief if warranted.

(P.S.: Ed Poor's alleged sense of humor may also have contributed to the prior campaign to expunge him.)

[edit] response to "content free email" accusation

I expressed in that email a legitimate concern I had on a very personal matter unrelated to my present difficulties here.

I would like to respond to one critic of this email:

***BEGIN QUOTE***

Message: 1 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:11:35 -0800 From: Delirium <delirium@...> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] About Plautus Satire To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l@...> Message-ID: <403E6107.7030600@...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed

Jimmy Wales wrote:

p.s. Just to make sure I'm clear on what I find insulting about the "revenue streams" question, it isn't the notion that I might someday make some revenue from wikipedia. It's my dream, in fact, that this could someday be my fulltime job, an honorable job which I would be proud to have earned. It's the notion that I'd debase my ideals for the encyclopedia in the process that I find offensive.

Oddly enough, you've even been one of the more stringent voices against putting Wikipedia in a position where that might even unintentionally, as might happen if it were to become financially reliant on large grants from a particular government or organization (which would then be able to say "well, you can do what you want, but we don't feel we can continue to support you if you do [...]").

So really a content-free email, but I think most (all?) of us here aren't too worried about that possibility.

-Mark

***END QUOTE*

I would just like to say that in my defense, the accusations that have been laid against me recently are in strong contradiction with my recent behaviour.

I have gone out of my way to be courteous, considerate and cooperative in contributing content. hmm Please overlook that alliteration, it was completely coincidental but I see upon brief reflection that it may be interpreted as a glib remark. I am now considering backspacing over this text, but recent experience has taught me that a better course of action would be to explain in minute detail precisely why it should be inoffensive.

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope you see my point here. I am not trying to be combative, on the contrary, I have tried to end hostilities, and not seek any retaliation for what I perceive as bad behaviours against me.

(P.S.: On an irrelevant side note, Mr. Wales is now being taken at face value for reasonable comments he made about me. Should my comments about myself ever after be taken as jokes or dodges because of bad behaviour (like calling people insane assholes in private emails only tangentally related to wikipedia)?

[edit] Frenetic tone of opposition to Plautus satire

I offer, as evidence that this crusade (my characterization of this campaign to get me banned permanently) is unfair and unwarranted, all of the repeated needling and prodding and poking and jamming of this subject in front of everyone who may or may not take an interest in it. If my "abuse" was as obvious as many claim, this type of redundant, hyperactive rhetoric would be unnecessary, and since it bears no resemblance and only tangental relation to the ongoing mediation processes (of myself and others) it is moot.

Evidence for this is all over wikipedia where I have made my contributions. I do not quote and cite the evidence here because it is copious. Also unquoted and uncited are about half the comments from this email list on this issue regarding banning me (and others, apparently). A cursory glance at the archives demonstrates the frantic nature and high decibel level of this organized, announced campaign to see me banned no matter what my future actions may hold.

[edit] Plautus Satire's e-mails to Bcorr

See User:Bcorr/Plautus for emails (and Bcorr's interleaving emails, where applicable). You can use this link if you are concerned that someone may alter that page, which is the version as originally first posted by BCorr. Martin 22:35, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Plautus satire's emails to AllyUnion

Email 1:

Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 15:26:07 GMT
To: AllyUnion
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
From: Plautus satire <plautus@shaw.ca>



Plautus' ban expires 06:00, Jul 27, 2005.

Email 2 + AllyUnion's reply:

Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 01:43:56 -0700
From: AllyUnion
To: Plautus satire <plautus_satire@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail

Please do not email me any further, otherwise I will consider it as unsolicited spam email and
will sue you under the maximum
+extent of California law.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 05:57:50PM +0000, Plautus satire wrote:
>
> Please see:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&oldid=19863722#Troll_Mafia
>
> Raul654 has unfairly had me banned from wikipedia. He has a personal agenda, 
> and has banned me motivated purely by malice.
> If you are able to, please help reverse this ban and/or help me get Raul654 punished
> for his damaging and childish actions.

--
AllyUnion

Email 3:

This is not an unsolicited email. You are an administrator on wikipedia, which is a public 
forum, and I am a user of that forum. If you do not want emails like this, surrender your 
administrator account to me and I will field them for you.

Comments: It is apparent that he emailed many administrators the same message, which, in my opinion, considered as spam. --AllyUnion (talk) 02:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)