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).
Codie Vickers
(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.
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(a)rufus.d2g.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] About Plautus Satire
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Message-ID: <403E6107.7030600(a)rufus.d2g.com>
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.
Codie Vickers
(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)?
Hmm, after viewing messages about Plautus, I must say that I find Jimbo's "All you need is love" response most disappointing.
I must say that he's a busy little beaver. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=… shows that he has made over 500 edits over the last three days alone. This includes some articles such as quasar, but mainly in advocating and splattering his ,um, views all over the talk pages.
For instance, on the Sep 11 Attacks page, Plautus is now arguing that the Flight 93 passengers did not charge the hijackers, and is veering that page off in a direction there that may see this site crashing into a lawsuit or two. (He does seem to be saying that the families who reported the phone calls are all liars) The size of the talk page is also growing.
People have now left the wikipedia site, or so I hear, and there's a list of complaints growing on Jimbo's talk page. Let's also not forget what might happen if his stuff gets copied across to other sites that use wikipedia material as all or part of their content.
My own feeling is that Plautus should be given the "Get back to where you once belonged" treatment.
He is completely fouling thiongs up here.
____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.as…
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.
Codie Vickers
See [[Talk:Eber]] for details, where a kook demands an apology from
me.
Zestauferov has been pushing his own idiosyncratic racial theory about
Jews into as many articles that he can. As far as I can tell, no one
else has ever suggested that the proto-Hebews are a distinct people,
& are somehow related to a number of other peoples (e.g., inhabitants of
the Caucasus, the Hurrians, etc.) Requests for sources that prove these
theories are _not_ his own ideas, when answered, fail to offer any
such evidence -- simply more arguments of questionable quality that this
is fact. And now he's taken to insulting me, & still refuses to even
acknowledge that what he is stating is a theory -- not fact.
I have no problem with "alternative" theories; I know it's more than
likely some will end up being proven true. And the rest are best dealt
with under daylight where they can be seen for what they are. However,
I have problems with people who want to push their own wild ideas into
Wikipedia & claim that they are fact.
I never thought another contributor to Wikipedia would ever get under
my skin like this, but if I were given to such actions, I'd probably
act like a vigilante (e.g., banning him, doing massive reverts to every
article he has touched, etc.) to my discredit.
Geoff
In emails to me today, Plautus Satire has accused me of lying to him
about his being moderated on the mailing list. (He is not, has never
been, and it's his own inability to function even after people have
explained the problem to him that's to blame for the mailing list
problems.)
He's also asked me about my "revenue streams" from Wikipedia, and
whether they might somehow be "dependent on popular misconceptions
being substituted in place of relevant, unpopular, dispassionat [sic]
facts?"
I consider both of those remarks to be so preposterous as to cut off
any further possibility of hope for sensible discussion.
Here's a hint for trolls of the future -- when writing to me to beg
for a rehearing, try to avoid insulting me to my face twice in one
day.
--Jimbo
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.
Erik (Eloquence) has called for a 'return to vigilantism'. I oppose
this. Let's vote.
How many people want admins to have the Authority to temp-ban any user
who (in their opinion) has violated a community rule? (Confession: This
is precisely what I did myself with Wik a couple of weeks ago, so there
is, er, "blood on my hands").
How many people want to decisions on banning (except for clear-cut
"simple vandalism" or "emergencies") to be handled Only By The
Arbitration Committee?
1. Please clarify whether you agree that these are the two alternatives.
2. Please indicate which alternative you want.
If enough of us on the mailing list have strong feelings about this, I
will create a policy polling page on the English Wikipedia, and we can
see if a consensus develops that merits a change in policy.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
P.S. I'm trying to be impartial about this, even though I have an
opinion.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I've noted this at Wikipedia as a Press Source
>
> The CBC Newsworld <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBC_Newsworld> programme
> Counterspin in a discussion on "Corruption and the Political Process"
> made use of the Wikipedia definition of crony capitalism
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism> , February 25.
>
> It's interesting to see that we are being quoted by the primary Canadian
> TV Network in the context of a current domestic political scandal. :-)
>
Should we consider that we're establishing a corollary to Gresham's Law
("Bad money drives out good")? That would be, "People tend to refer to
the least expensive (or most most widely accessible) source of facts."
Geoff
> 2. People have continued to say, over the years, that if we dignify
> fringe theories with any better treatment than utter condemnation,
> they'll infect all the mainstream articles. They bring up [[flat earth]]
> or [[Protocols of the Elders of Zion]] (PEZ) as examples. But we already
> have a policy for these topics which works well and is stable.
>
> Ideas held by a partisan minority are labelled "held by a minority", and
> that minority is identified. Believers in a flat earth, by the way, are
> so few that none has ever graced our hallowed halls. Lots of Arabs,
> though, believe (or frequently hear their government-sponsored media
> say) that the PEZ is authentic. The way we treat PEZ is to say that
Lots of Americans and Europeians though, belive (or frequently hear
their government-sponsored media say) that lots of Arabs belive that
the PEZ is authentic.
> * Western historians dismiss PEZ as a fabrication, although several
> Islamic nations officially support it.
* Islamic historians dismiss the resurrection of Jesus Christ as a
fabrication, although several Western governments officially support
that view.
It's all in the eyes of the beholder
BL