[WikiEN-l] Re: Plautus
mapellegrini at comcast.net
mapellegrini at comcast.net
Thu Feb 26 01:29:15 UTC 2004
I didn't want to get involved with this on the mailing list, but this is
getting ridiculous. I've been involved in this since the first ten minutes
or so, so I'm uniquely qualified to say - the whole situation is a case
study in how the system has failed to repel a persistent bad user. I'm sorry
to all the good people who put thought into the dispute resolution process,
but it's broken.
Plautus has been here 2 weeks, and virtually every single person he's
interacted with wants him banned - that doesn't happen by accident. He's
apologized time and again, but (each time) courteously rejects any advice
that he should cooperate with other users or obey the NPOV policy. He's
abusive, impossible to work with, and paranoid.
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?
--Mark Pellegrini
En. Wikipedia Administrator
User: Raul654
> Send WikiEN-l mailing list submissions to
> wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikien-l-request at Wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikien-l-owner at Wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of WikiEN-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: "Go" back to WikiBooks vs. Wikipedia discussion
> (Poor, Edmund W)
> 2. Re: Re: recipes (Peter Jaros)
> 3. Plautus (Martin Harper)
> 4. Re: Plautus (Jimmy Wales)
> 5. Re: Paul Vogel and anon IDs (Jimmy Wales)
> 6. Protected Wikipedia:Main Page (James Rosenzweig)
> 7. Re: Re: recipes (Ray Saintonge)
> 8. Re: Instructions (Anthere)
> 9. Re: Plautus (Erik Moeller)
> 10. Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other imperativecontent
> (Anthere)
> 11. Re: Plautus (Fred Bauder)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:05:04 -0500
> From: "Poor, Edmund W" <Edmund.W.Poor at abc.com>
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] "Go" back to WikiBooks vs. Wikipedia
> discussion
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID:
>
> <E506B3FF6BC1254C9AC1B948C380BC2801FBB340 at sm-nyny-xm05.nena.wdpr.disney.com>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> LOL! You want to step outside and repeat that remark? You know, a boxing
> ring is square, too!! ;-)
>
> Ed
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Barrett
>
> Not recipes, but the fact that Go is an unacceptable topic for
> Wikipedia: the very raison d'etre of the off-square-ness of the grid is
> the player POV. NPOV requires a square grid.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 17:37:41 -0500
> From: Peter Jaros <rjaros at shaysnet.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: recipes
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <38CFB646-67E3-11D8-930E-000A27B3913C at shaysnet.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On Feb 24, 2004, at 11:51 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > Peter Jaros wrote:
> >
> >> Giving a recipe for a particular chocolate cake would not serve to
> >> describe chocolate cake. If one recipe was particularly famous,
> >> however, it might merit its own section (or possibly article; I'd
> >> like to try *that* cake) where the recipe *would* be descriptive.
> >> It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. It comes through to
> >> readers, if only in terms of a sense of the style.
> >
> > That's very patronizing of you.
>
> Sorry, I worded that poorly. What I meant that the distinction may not
> jump out at casual readers, but it sounds better nonetheless. As
> analogy, using the wrong word in a sentence and making the sentence
> meaningless is obvious to even a casual reader, while using casual
> language in a formal setting is often "felt" while not directly
> noticed. It can take a bit of working with a sentence to figure out
> what in it sounds too casual (or too formal, or awkward, etc.).
>
> Peter
>
> -- ---<>--- --
> A house without walls cannot fall.
> Help build the world's largest encyclopedia at Wikipedia.org
> -- ---<>--- --
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 22:55:52 -0000
> From: "Martin Harper" <martin at myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> To: wikien-l at Wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <403D27F8.5938.B4BD82 at localhost>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Arno M wrote:
> > When will something be done?
>
> Brian Corr wrote:
> > Could someone give an update on a timeline for action?
>
> Something will be done about Plautus when you do something about
> Plautus. The timeline for action on Plautus is roughly:
> 1) You decide to act.
> 2) You act.
>
> Perhaps you meant to ask a different question?
> -Martin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 14:49:16 -0800
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040225224916.GK23806 at joey.bomis.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Ed Poor is helping Plautus to try to learn the norms of the community,
> and has great hopes for the future. Plautus has also written to me
> expressing a desire for change.
>
> I will also try to help.
>
> In the meantime, show him love. Love is the only hope for us all.
> If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried.
>
> --Jimbo
>
> Brian Corr wrote:
>
> > I know folks are busy with Irismeister right now, but Plautus satire seems
> > to be eating up a lot of people's time -- both on talk pages and on
> > whichever article he decides to target -- currently
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tornado and
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado
> >
> > Could someone give an update on a timeline for action?
> >
> > Thanks, Brian (Bcorr)
> >
> > At 12:40:27 2/25/04 +0600, you wrote:
> > >Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 12:40:27 +0600
> > >From: "Arno M" <redgum46 at lycos.com>
> > >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> > >
> > >Speaking of which - this guy now has 21 signatures (myself included) who
> > >want him banned. He is continuing to make a joke out of the Sep 11 page
> > >and antagonising other users. When will something be done?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:05:26 -0800
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales at bomis.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Paul Vogel and anon IDs
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <20040225230526.GM23806 at joey.bomis.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> 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/-/0801865379/102-0949346-1338507?v=g
> lance
>
> 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.
>
> David Gerard wrote:
>
> > See
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Paul_Vogel/65.125
> .10.66/24.45.99.191/216.99.245.171
> >
> > He's coming in from three IPs and putting the same bit of spam into
> > a set of articles and their talk pages (and those of anyone who
> > reverts the spam).
> >
> > He intends to continue however possible:
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:White_supremacy&diff=2458552&old
> id=2458453
> >
> > "WE can revert until the cows come home as long as a NPOV is not being
> > maintained regarding this strictly Marxist-PC POV propaganda article."
> >
> > At what point should an anon user be blocked for spam? Is there a
> > measure of what's spamming on Wikipedia?
> >
> > (And I am following bcorr's example and trying to keep reverts to
> > no more than three per article.)
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 15:27:03 -0800 (PST)
> From: James Rosenzweig <jwrosenzweig at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Protected Wikipedia:Main Page
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <20040225232703.18502.qmail at web60707.mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Isomorphic caught someone vandalizing [[Wikipedia:Main
> Page]]. Iso reverted, and I decided to protect that
> page for essentially the same reasons that the Main
> Page has traditionally been protected. If you
> disagree, I have noted the protected status at
> [[Wikipedia talk:Main Page]] (and listed it as
> semi-permanently protected at [[Wikipedia:Protected
> page]]), and am happy to discuss things at W:MP's talk
> page. I assume I have done the right thing, but am
> happy to hear other perspectives.
>
> James Rosenzweig
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 16:13:01 -0800
> From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: recipes
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <403D3A0D.5090608 at telus.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Peter Jaros wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 2004, at 11:51 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> >
> >> Peter Jaros wrote:
> >>
> >>> Giving a recipe for a particular chocolate cake would not serve to
> >>> describe chocolate cake. If one recipe was particularly famous,
> >>> however, it might merit its own section (or possibly article; I'd
> >>> like to try *that* cake) where the recipe *would* be descriptive.
> >>> It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. It comes through
> >>> to readers, if only in terms of a sense of the style.
> >>
> >> That's very patronizing of you.
> >
> > Sorry, I worded that poorly. What I meant that the distinction may
> > not jump out at casual readers, but it sounds better nonetheless. As
> > analogy, using the wrong word in a sentence and making the sentence
> > meaningless is obvious to even a casual reader, while using casual
> > language in a formal setting is often "felt" while not directly
> > noticed. It can take a bit of working with a sentence to figure out
> > what in it sounds too casual (or too formal, or awkward, etc.).
>
> I do get a little hot over these deletion issues. :-)
>
> The expression that I found most patronizing was "it might merit its
> own section". I suspect that the subtleties between descriptive and
> prescriptive or between imperatiuve and indicative might not be
> meningful to the casual reader who wants to find out about a food and/or
> how to make it. The technical detailsof chocolate cakes are not
> inherently controversial. If different ways exist for making such a
> cake, the results of which is better can be entirely subjective.
>
> Using a wrong word that gives the sentence a different meaning, rather
> than just making it meaningless can launch a discussion into a very
> different direction. I confess to being quick to notice this kind of
> thing as I did with the earlier part of your previous post.
> "Proscriptive" and "prescriptive" have almost contradictory meanings,
> but grammaticaly can fit equally well into the same context. I couldn't
> pass up the opportunity.
>
> Ec
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 01:34:18 +0100
> From: Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Instructions
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <403D3F0A.8060104 at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> Ray Saintonge a écrit:
>
> >
> > Let me know, Anthere, if you need help in reverting these changes.
> >
> > Ec
>
> well, thanks Ec :-)
> I'll see how it goes...I am very optimistic :-)
>
> All involved are reasonable people. In case we need more
> reason(s)...your help will be appreciated :-)
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: 26 Feb 2004 01:39:00 +0100
> From: erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <93bAfYQxpVB at erik_moeller>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Jimmy-
> > In the meantime, show him love. Love is the only hope for us all.
> > If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried.
>
> Plautus is not reformable. He is a mentally unbalanced, paranoid
> delusional individual. The evidence here is about as clear as it can get.
> There is a discussion / evidence page at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
>
> In an informal poll, 23 users have expressed that they want Plautus to be
> banned. 3 or 4 users currently think that he can be reformed.
>
> This situation is much clearer than it was with Clutch, and Clutch was
> banned. It is much clearer than it was with Helga, and Helga was banned.
> It is much clearer than it was with Lir, and Lir was banned.
>
> I am all for due process. But this is not a case for mediation. I am
> beginning to doubt the capabilities of the arbitration committee. If they
> can't see that a user who writes messages like "UNBAN ME YOU FUCKING
> IGNORANT ASSHOLE" is a candidate for a ban, then they should not be
> allowed to make such decisions in the first place.
>
> We need quicker and more effective action against policy violations, or
> more users will be driven away in disgust. Wikipedia is a natural
> attraction point for cranks and crackpots. If you want to run an asylum,
> Jimbo, you should say so upfront. Otherwise we should refer these
> individuals to the proper institutions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 02:01:59 +0100
> From: Anthere <anthere8 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: HOWTOs/Recipes/Instructions and other
> imperativecontent
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <403D4587.8050609 at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>
>
> Charles Matthews a écrit:
> >>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
> >
> >
> > Well, I believed it was policy they all went to wikibooks; I thought and
> > think that that's a good, clear policy; and not one that hampers changing
> > the policy later if other thoughts prevail.
> >
> > Charles
>
> No, there is no policy on the matter. It seems it was agreed upon among
> the couple of people doing transwiki and vfd users. In short, that is an
> assumed consensus among a couple of people who care about the matter,
> and want wikibook to progress (which is something I certainly support :-))
>
> But I fear this supposed policy, is clearly not consensual at all.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 18:08:09 -0700
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Message-ID: <BC629508.18EC%fredbaud at ctelco.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
>
> I didn't actually fall down and roll on the floor, but LOL.
>
> Don't worry, we can do the job.
>
> Fred, arbitration committee member
>
> > From: erik_moeller at gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> > Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> > Date: 26 Feb 2004 01:39:00 +0100
> > To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Plautus
> >
> > Jimmy-
> >> In the meantime, show him love. Love is the only hope for us all.
> >> If that doesn't work, well, at least we tried.
> >
> > Plautus is not reformable. He is a mentally unbalanced, paranoid
> > delusional individual. The evidence here is about as clear as it can get.
> > There is a discussion / evidence page at
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire
> >
> > In an informal poll, 23 users have expressed that they want Plautus to be
> > banned. 3 or 4 users currently think that he can be reformed.
> >
> > This situation is much clearer than it was with Clutch, and Clutch was
> > banned. It is much clearer than it was with Helga, and Helga was banned.
> > It is much clearer than it was with Lir, and Lir was banned.
> >
> > I am all for due process. But this is not a case for mediation. I am
> > beginning to doubt the capabilities of the arbitration committee. If they
> > can't see that a user who writes messages like "UNBAN ME YOU FUCKING
> > IGNORANT ASSHOLE" is a candidate for a ban, then they should not be
> > allowed to make such decisions in the first place.
> >
> > We need quicker and more effective action against policy violations, or
> > more users will be driven away in disgust. Wikipedia is a natural
> > attraction point for cranks and crackpots. If you want to run an asylum,
> > Jimbo, you should say so upfront. Otherwise we should refer these
> > individuals to the proper institutions.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Erik
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>
> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 7, Issue 72
> ***************************************
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list