User:Bcorr/Archives/Plautus
This is a repository of emails I received from User:Plautus satire to serve as part of the evidence about his behavior.
Plau·tus (Titus Maccius Plautus), c.254-184 BC, Roman writer of comedies.
sat·ire A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
Also see this page at the YahELite Forum ->Flames ->The Pit for examples of similar behavior on another site.
Original email from Plautus
[edit]Delivered-To: bcorr@xxxxx
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:32:41 GMT
To: Bcorr <BCorr@xxxxx>
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail (Raul654 repeated unwarranted bans)
From: Plautus satire <plautus@xxxxx>
Reply-To: Plautus satire <plautus@xxxxx>
To: Bcorr <BCorr@xxxxx>
X-Mailer: MediaWiki interuser e-mailer
Please allow me to have a few moments of your time.
I have been the victim of what I feel is a very unfair banning by an admin using the ID Raul654. This banning started several days ago when I began editing several entries as a new contributing user. In this time I have added completely new entries ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Aquaponics http://en.wikipedia.org/Phytochemicals http://en.wikipedia.org/Watercress http://en.wikipedia.org/Garden_cress ) and I have made factual error correction of a few other entries that have remained in place. In particular (since this is an entry that has led to my banning) I corrected an error which stated Albert Einstein was offered the first presidency of Israel, when in fact he had been offered the SECOND presidency. For my insistence that this material and other material belongs in the Albert Einstein entry, I was banned.
Repeated reversions of my edits were done without explanation on the talk page after my ban was lifted. After three attempts to keep a valid edit in an entry I was banned again. Once again the ban was lifted and once again numerous reversions of my edits were performed without discussion or explanation on the talk page. The various page histories will show this from a careful examination. In all three cases where I was banned it was to settle disputed edits. The wikipedia guidelines state that bans and page protections are ONLY to be used in cases of persisent vandalism. I made every edit in good faith and in the end Raul654 decided to use my removal of my OWN posts (which I felt had become extraneous and needlessly adding bloat to a large talk page) from a talk page as an excuse to ban me yet again.
All of this clearly illustrates the double standard Raul654 has been using to ban at least me, but probably many others. If he disagrees with them, he uses their persistence in presenting facts as evidence that they are a troll, a vandal or whatever word he chooses to use. In this case clearly the ban was unwarranted. If he agrees with them, he rewards their persistence in reversion and claims it is a service and not the vandalism that it becomes when a disagreeable sort does the same thing. I was discussing reasonably in talk pages every edit I was making, and was greeted with stony silence and automatic kneejerk reversions. Other users in many cases have stepped in to mediate, to draft "compromise" versions which do not ignore new facts I presented, and in some cases these versions have been stamped out as well. Once again, the page histories reveal all of this.
So I appeal to you to help me get this ban lifted once again, and to ask for advice in dealing with Raul654. Clearly he has made it his personal mission to ban me. He has done it twice over the span of three days, and in both cases it was for edit conflicts made in good faith by all parties, not a case of persistent vandalism as he suggests. Once again, the page histories do indeed show this quite clearly, when indexed with their respective talk page histories.
I should also point out that I was banned for doing something that I admit was a mistake. I deleted somebody else's edits to my talk page, because I felt they were slanderous and inaccurate. I was under the impression my talk page was owned by me and could be modified as I saw fit. I have since apologized for deleting others' edits from my talk page, and have not deleted any since. I have deleted my own messages, as I mentioned above, when I felt they had become pointless, extraneous or simply just bloat. I feel this is every wikipedia user's responsibility to cut down on bloat in "current" editions. If I am wrong I'm willing to be flexible on that, but I definitely do think there needs to be a way for people to delete their own edits without sanction, especially on the talk pages. It's been pointed out by many people at many times that talk pages are not a chat room, if there is information not serving a purpose there I feel it should be deleted.
To sum up I would just like to state that I am a good faith user of wikipedia and not a vandal. Please do not allow Raul654's personal feelings about me to prevent me from contributing in a healthy manner to wikipedia. This is a tremendous resource, and one that I feel I can help improve for all. While I may be new to the "culture" on wikipedia and while I may be very poor at becoming popular, I know for a fact my contribution history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=Plautus+satire&limit=500&offset=0 ) shows I can contribute in a meaningful way and am not a "troll" or a "vandal". Perhaps I have different ideals of how wikipedia should get there, but I agree with all as to where it should go. It is and should remain a storehouse of factual information in a usable format, not a game played to score points instead of making point.
I reiterate my request for aid in removing this ban, and in dealing with Raul654 on a more permanent basis. If a culture change is what's needed then I can patiently wait until the culture changes. But if there is another remedy to Raul654's apparent persecution of me on flimsy grounds, I would like to avail myself of it.
Thank you for your time,
Codie Vickers (Plautus satire)
My reply to Plautus
[edit]From: Brian Corr <BCorr@xxxxx>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail (Raul654 repeated unwarranted bans)
In-reply-to: <200402171532.i1HFWf3i010479@isidore.wikimedia.org>
X-Sender: pop3.xxxxx&bcorr%xxxxx@127.0.0.1
To: Plautus satire <plautus@xxxxx>
Message-id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040217112446.02ce3b58@127.0.0.1>
Original-recipient: rfc822;plautus@xxxxx
Dear Codie,
I only have a minute to respond to you, but in short I have to say that just having reviewed your talk page I am in support of your banning.
Please don't contact me again.
Thanks, Bcorr
Plautus's first response to my reply
[edit]From: Plautus Satire <plautus@xxxxx>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail (Raul654 repeated unwarranted bans)
To: BCorr@xxxxx
Reply-To: plautus@xxxxx
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 17:21:52 -0000
X-Mailer: YahELite
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
In reply to:
>Return-path: <BCorr@xxxxx>
>Received: from MICHIGAN.smtp.mindspring.com
> (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx.client.dsl.net [xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx]) by abbots.dsl.net (Postfix)
> with ESMTP id BF53010DE5E for <plautus@xxxxx>; Tue,
> 17 Feb 2004 11:39:45 -0500 (EST)
>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 11:39:44 -0500
>From: Brian Corr <BCorr@xxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail (Raul654 repeated unwarranted bans)
>To: Plautus satire <plautus@xxxxx>
>
>Dear Codie,
>
>I only have a minute to respond to you
Well I have all day to repsond to you, you ignorant cocksucker.
>, but in short I have to say that
>just having reviewed your talk page I am in support of your banning.
In short I have to say that just having reviewed my talk page you are keeping yourself ignorant of my many valid contributions to wikipedia and the shameless self-serving nature of Raul654's ban.
>Please don't contact me again.
Go fuck yourself, asshole.
>Thanks,
>Bcorr
Thanks for what? Stupid mother fucker.
Plautus's third email
[edit]Delivered-To: bcorr@xxxxx
From: Plautus Satire <plautus@xxxxx>
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail (Raul654 repeated unwarranted bans)
To: BCorr@xxxxx
Reply-To: plautus@xxxxx
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:10:08 -0000
How the fuck did a bunch of bottom-feeding, mewling pissants like you assholes get control of wikipedia? Try reading the sysop guidelines. They quite clearly prohibit personal vendettas waged by sysops.
Plautus's fourth email
[edit]Delivered-To: bcorr@xxxxx
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:40:51 GMT
To: Bcorr <BCorr@xxxxx>
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail (Raul654 and his personal vendetta)
From: Plautus satire <plautus@xxxxx>
Reply-To: Plautus satire <plautus@xxxxx>
To: Bcorr <BCorr@xxxxx>
X-Mailer: MediaWiki interuser e-mailer
First, let me apologize if this is an unwanted email. I have not yet memorized all the sysop names and correlated them with email addresses yet, and I am using the wikipedia form to send email to sysops. I would normally not utilize a "mass email" style format to be heard but I feel in this case I have no other recourse.
I feel there is now an active effort by at least one sysop to mischaracterize and malign my attempts to contribute to wikipedia. As one bit of incontrovertable evidence, I offer this post:
"I will ban you myself. And I will make sure that no one unblocks you this time. →Raul654 19:39, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)"
This post follows the allegation that I have been vandalizing entries, harassing wikipedia users and dirupting "wikipedia life", an allegation that is unsupported by the preponderance of the evidence, as a careful examination of the page histories will reveal.
Let me begin my defense against this attack by first stating that my edits to wikipedia have all been made in good faith. I offer my sincere belief that I am not a "vandal" or a "troll" just trying to ruin wikipedia. In every case I performed an edit of a wikipedia entry I did so firmly believing that I was right and the current information was wrong. No malice was every intended or expressed, but may have been inferred.
I am very reluctant to discuss specific details of this entire process in this kind of "mass email" for two reasons. One reason is that all the evidence still exists there in the page histories, anyone who cares to look beyond a user's story can find the facts in the various page histories. It's a simple matter to examine my contributions, there haven't been that many in the three or four days I was allowed to post unmolested.
Instead I will seek to illustrate more broadly to voice a criticism that I, as a user and recent constructive contributor, have of wikipedia. I realize that by not making my defense specifically to cover my own actions this may deprive me useful arguments to support my specific case directly. I am prepared to make this sacrifice in the name of purposeful objective analysis.
I will attempt now to form a general defense under which I will seek refuge for my conduct. I will do this by suggesting hypothetical situations and asking questions, then suggesting and analyzing some potential solutions.
1) Should unpopular edits be reversioned without adequate discussions?
This is clearly a yes or no question. A yes answer implies that there is some utilityin producing an extraneous copy of an existing edit in the page history, or to protect other users from having to see new edits, or both. This implies that any new edits lack the credence of an existing edit, and must be closely monitored so that no new edits leak out before they are de jure approved by all the core authority users. If any error or omission is suspected, this answer implies, there must be an immediate, determined effort to prevent the new edit from receiving scrutiny. A no answer to this question implies that there is no reason to create an extraneous copy of an edit that still exists in the page history, and that any disputed edit should remain until it has been subjected to all due scrutiny.
2) Should page protection be used to prevent an unpopular edit from being seen?
Clearly another yes or no question. A yes implies edits that are not popular should not be seen. Negative implies unpopular edits should be given the same opportunity to be scrutinized as any popular edit. Given that there are many popular myths, and many unpopular truths, is it wise to bury all unpopular edits by starting a reversion war?
3) Should banning be used to protect talk pages?
A yes answer here suggests that talk pages can not or should not be protected and that banning is appropriate if talk pages become the subject of alleged vandalism. A no indicates that either talk pages can be protected, or do not require protection, and that banning is not a suitable tool for policing talk pages. What is your answer? Should banning be used in place of page protection to protect talk pages?
4) Should banning be enforced for users deleting their own edits in talk pages?
Flip a coin. I say no. if you want to paraphrase what somebody says or quote, I suppose that's your right. The author gives up all rights to copy and modify. So if you copy and paste a quote into wikipedia, you surrender your rights to copy it or to even keep it there. We all surrender this right to each other. But don't do it to a sysop, because they can take personal vendettas beyond words and have you banned.
I apologize if I have been unable to remain completely objective, but I'll be blunt, this bullshit pisses me off. There is no excuse for this kind of blatant disregard of wikipedia guidelines to further a personal vendetta.
I am not perfect and neither is my record on wikipedia, but I have done nothing proscribed by the wikipedia guidelines for sysops and IP bans. The three bans I have now endured were in each case personally motivated, and in two cases it was the same sysop who has already stated (conditioned with slander thrown at me) that he intends to see me banned permanently, prior to any misconduct I may or may not engage in.