I have banned Plautus satire. I put '7 days' as the length of time
for the ban, but it really lasts until the arbitration committee makes
their decision (which will be within that 7 days).
It is outside the scope of what I want to do, but the general uproar
was large, and the community consensus broad. My own judgment of his
actions *since* I warned him and *since* Ed had expressed optimism
suggested strongly that reform was not likely to continue.
--Jimbo
I agree with Mark's "ban Plautus till we decide" proposal, provided that
the Arbitration Committee agrees BEFORE the temp-ban goes into effect.
This is the crucial difference between Vigilantism and Due Process which
is essential to preventing a slip into tyranny that folks like the
Cunctator are always warning us about.
Urgently,
Ed Poor
Nobody is really debating that Plautus is a known vandal, that's a given by now. The only quesiton is what to do with him now. I'd like to offer a compromise.
Those of us aligned squarely in the
ban-him camp want him banned permanently and immediately. We feel that
Ed's noble efforts to reform him are doomed (if not already so
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tornado - "I feel you abused my trust,
Ed Poor, and for that reason you are not likely to get it again in the future.").
We are not willing to sit around waiting for the arbitration committee to get its
act together (however long that might be) while he is free to
vandalize articles and cause grief to other contributors.
By the same token, there are others who feel that vigilantism/unilaterialism is
bad; that the dispute resolution guidelines are worthless if we don't follow them.
This is also a very valid point.
I think both sides can be placated. I propose that we ban him, until such time
as the arbitration committee can get together and render a verdict. This would
remove much of the urgency from the issue. The arbitration commitee would be free
to go at whatever pace they want.
I think this is a fair way of giving both sides what they want. In legal terms,
think of it an emergency injunction. He'll get his due process, we in the community
will be protected from a known vandal.
--Mark Pellegrini
User:Raul654
PS: Jimbo, I didn't mean to give people the impression I was quoting you - I apologize. I was actually quoting Erik/Eloquence.
Well, I took Jimbo's advice to heart and rewrote the article. It was only a
few minutes later that Paul Vogel edited it. To his credit (and I guess
mine too) he left most of what I wrote, although he did add in some stuff
about Palestinians and Jewish supremacy. Here's the difference between the two:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=White_separatist&curid=477296&di…>
However, the main problem -- and the same problem as before -- is that his
goal is to include two paragraphs about the supposed distinctions. All of
his previous edits to [[White separatist]] consisted only of those
paragraphs. This time he added them into the article, and also noted that
they are quotes -- he says " According to a white separatist website:"
Anyway, I wanted to 1) let you know it was good advice and we've made some
progress it seems, and 2) ask some other folks to step in. I want to step
away from this day-long conflict.
Thanks,
Brian (Bcorr)
On 2/25/04, Jimbo wrote:
>I'm a little confused. Why are people so adamant against having an
>article "White Separatism"? Rather than banging our head against the
>wall fighting this guy, why not just make a better article?
>
>The junk this guy is inserting is junk. It looks like a quote from
>someone, and if it is, then it's probably worth treating in a short
>article on the subject.
>
>There's nothing inherently wrong (that I know of) about having an
>article on "White Separatism" as distinct from (but related to) "White
>Supremacy".
>
>Here's a book about it:
>http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801865379/102-0949346-133850…
>
>My dictionary (American Heritage) has separate entries for "White
>separatist" and "White supremacy".
>
>The (in my opinion, disgusting) point of view expressed in the quote
>is of encyclopedic interest because it *is* a point of view held by at
>least some people who take action in the world, action that should
>concern us all.
"But some people are just not suitable for editing here, and that's
just a simple brute fact." --Jimbo
Then Jimbo, I'd like to ask you the same question I asked earlier - just
what does someone have to do to be banned? Drive multiple useful
contributors away? (Been there - Evercat and Finlay) Harass other users (Done that) Convince virtually the entire community to ban you? (Yep) Reject all advice to follow the rules of the community (Again, yes).
Where do you draw the line between someone who says he'll change from someone who actually will? When do 'silly things' like hard evidence and overwhelming community opinion come into play?
--Mark Pellegrini
User:Raul654
Lir wrote on Plautus's talk page:
<< I advise you redouble your efforts not to make any personal attacks
whatsoever, whenever someone insults you or deletes your text -- you
need to document it and keep a record of it, so that you can build a
case that you are being harrassed. For the time being, it is also in
your interest to avoid making any controversial edits whatsoever. >>
1. Lir is 100% right about this.
2. By bringing point #1 to Plautus's attention, Lir has shown
outstandingly good WikiCitizenship.
3. It's in Wikipedia's long-term interest to try hard to teach new users
our ways. "Those who have been forgiven much, will love much."
4. Yes, Erik, it's a lot of work (!)
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
I really don't think it matters if recipes and other how to's are on wikipedia or on wikibooks, as long as they are not deleted totally. Can we come to some agreement on what to do and just do it. I would like a policy in place so that they don't keep getting listed on VfD.
Theresa
Mark Pellegrini wrote:
>Erik wasn't half right when he said Plautus is not reformable. He's driving
>away good users (Evercat and Finlay McWalter, just to name two), and wasting
>enormous amounts of contributor time. If Wikipedia is to become popular on
>the scale that many of us would like to see, the system needs to be
>reformed. Just what does it take to get banned from this place?
I think the underlying problem here is that Jimbo has stepped back a
bit from his role as "benevolent dictator," referring this kind of
decision to the arbitration committee. The problem is that the
arbitration committee can't move quickly enough to deal with problem
users like this one.
One solution might be to designate a few trusted individuals as
volunteer "judges" -- people to whom Jimbo in his capacity as
dictator grants the authority to take action instantly, if they feel
conditions warrant. The decisions of judges, of course, would be
subject to review by the arbitration committee, and a judge who
repeatedly abuses his authority would have it revoked.
As a matter of policy, I think "judges" should not be allowed to
simultaneously sit on the arbitration committee, so that we have some
separation of powers.
--Sheldon
Just to clarify, I was referring to Lir's post -- I also found it puzzling
and agree with Ed's assessment of the inherent contradiction:
Lir wrote:
>In short, Plautus is adding the kind of information
>which the Wikipedia should contain. I will agree that
>this information should not be presented as NPOV fact,
>it most certainly should be presented with an "experts
>tend to disagree" disclaimer -- however, it should NOT
>be deleted.
Thanks,
Brian (Bcorr)
Ed Poor wrote:
>Bcorr used this puzzling phrase:
>
>* "NPOV facts"
>
>1. Excuse me, folks, but that is a blatant contradiction in terms. I see
>the terms "POV" and "NPOV" misused quite a lot, and I think this misuse
>betrays a fundamental misunderstanding.
Erik,
I disagree with your evaluation of both Clutch and Plautus.
I had a long e-mail dialogue with Clutch, plus a phone conversation. He
told me plainly that he did not accept the NPOV policy and would
therefore leave voluntarily. He made one more post to this mailing list,
and I chided him, "Why post here if you don't support the goals of the
project?" And that was the end of it. I think it was more of a mutual
"we agree to disagree" kind of thing than an actual ban -- unlike Helga.
In Plautus's case, he has shown sufficient willingness to dialogue with
me to merit my continued Mediation efforts. I must chide you for calling
him "mentally unbalanced" and "delusional", for two reasons: (a) you
have not show me that you have psychiatric credentials, and (b) I don't
think a psychiatrist can diagnose someone merely by reading their
Internet posts (both A and B would have to be true, to justify your
"diagnosis"). Please give me more time to teach Plautus our ways: the
way of NPOV and the way of courtesy.
Uncle Ed