Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire

User:Plautus satire (contributions) (talk)
User:24.79.3.230 (contributions) (talk)

Purpose

This page was created as per steps 2 and 3 of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

Overview

Anyone posting here should first see Wikiquette, Talk:Albert Einstein, Talk:Black hole, Talk:Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, User talk:Plautus satire, and User:Silsor/fanmail (private email correspondence containing profanity). Evercat compiled a list of disputes at User:Evercat/Plautus. Raul654 is compiling a timeline at User:Raul654/Plautus.

In User:Silsor/fanmail, Plautus admits making edits to the Ilan Ramon page that can only be characterized as anti-Semitic... these edits were made anonymously under IP address 24.79.3.230. The page history of Aquaponics suggested that this was him, and in his mail to Silsor he admitted it (and his e-mail headers show the same IP address).

This certainly suggests what his problem is with Albert Einstein (Jewish) and black holes (originally predicted by Einstein's general relativity). Curps

By the way, if you wish to proudly take credit for your original posts under the IP address 24.79.3.230, see Wikipedia:Changing_attribution_for_an_edit. Curps 22:39, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As a side note, Plautus Satire has previously engaged in the same behaviour in other Internet forums, including the Yahoo! Apollo-hoax group and mailing list, from which he was banned in January for abusive behaviour. He has also engaged in abusive behaviour on the apollohoax.com forums [1] in January.

Review of the archives of this forum show Plautus satire was behaving precisely as he was being treated in virtually every instance or context. - Plautus satire 06:55, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Plautus satire has proven himself to be incorrigible. Despite numerous attempts to reason with him, he has refused to stop his bad behavior. When banned, he harassed silsor to the point of being criminal. When banned by me, he spammed every administrator to try to get unbanned. As soon as he was unbanned, he want right back to doing what he was (in part) banned for - reverting talk pages. →Raul654 05:08, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

PS: As per (very good) advice from Isomorphic, I have removed the offending pages from my watchlist, and intend to ignore Plautus. I suspect others are aware of him now and will be watching him closely. If he has truly turned over a new leaf, this is an oppurtunity for him to prove himself a good wikipedian. →Raul654 06:35, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

What Raul654 is now choosing to call "bad behaviour" is the deletion of ones own extraneous, superfluous and redundant edits, which is sanctioned by the wikiquette guidelines. - Plautus satire 06:30, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) (Not only sanctioned, but encouraged. And many users practice arbitrary deletion of their talk pages, for example Evercat. - Plautus satire 16:46, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC))

No. Just today, you made a massive series of dozens of self-serving edits to Talk:Black_hole from top to bottom that altered that page beyond recognition, deleting not just your own comments but those of many other users, after you had been warned repeatedly not to do so and had apparently promised not to do so. You are intentionally not acting in good faith.

Actually what I did was clean up a mess that was centered around proposals that I had withdrawn. I am under no obligation to follow through with or defend preemptively every proposal I make before I carry that proposal out. - Plautus satire 06:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thus, if it again becomes necessary to change back any of your work in the future, I don't believe you are entitled to any explanation or dialog in the Talk page. It is not worth the effort to compose a reply if you will delete or distort it while the dispute is still ongoing. Curps 06:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think what you mean to say is I deleted extraneous and superfluous threads that I myself started, a practice which is condoned in the wikiquette guidelines and for which you have sought to have me banned permanently. All I can say is I am very thankful that you are not the supreme dictator of wikipedia. - Plautus satire 07:01, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You altered or outright deleted ongoing discussion of unresolved issues.

See above. I ended discussions I started, and in which I had no allies to continue the fight. Is your desire to keep fights alive so strong that you can not see this? - Plautus satire 16:41, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore you deleted my comment at the bottom of this revision, which was not a "thread that you yourself started": 21:50, 18 Feb 2004. Your claim that this was inadvertent is not credible. You probably did much more than this, but I don't have the time to sort through your dozens and dozens of edits from today alone.

You are not sincere or truthful in describing what you did in the past or what you intend to do in the future. Curps 07:36, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can't agree with either of the poll options set up below ("he's bad and should be banned" and "he's good and should stay"). He is not a vandal and ~~I can't determine whether he is just a good troll without analysis that I am unwilling to do right now~~ not a troll, just a conspiracy theorist. On the other hand he is not quite a useful contributor; the articles he edited (Watercress, Garden cress, Phytochemical) with non-crank material were apparently only astroturfing to build his "legitimate user" profile immediately after he was unblocked.

In my opinion: Plautus Satire needs a time out in the corner. He has an awful temper and thinks everybody is out to get him; combined with his fringe theories on some topics and insistence on getting his way he'll end up as another banned Khranus unless he can control himself. I want to see how Plautus Satire handles being a regular contributor now that he has encountered NPOV policy, social etiquette and community standards. silsor 06:08, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

silsor, first let me apologize to you for sending you those profanity-soaked emails. I sent them in anger and they in no way represent any personal feelings I have for you, as I have none. I was typing out of frustration for what I perceived as unfair treatment. You are welcome to use the emails as you see fit, as I can not claim I did not send them, as much as they shame me.

Second, I in no way intend to "get my way" "at any cost" so to speak. In fact I am now trying to go out of my way to prove I can cooperate and obey the rules and guidelines that are applied commonly to all. I shouldn't have to, but I realize human beings are not perfect and they are not all trusting, so I am making the effort. Note I do not say I am offering any bargain or deal or compromise, I only say I am trying as we all are trying to contribute and to "all just get along". - Plautus satire 06:34, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Apology accepted and we'll see how it goes. silsor 06:41, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

I will add my voice to Silsor's... this issue should be dropped for now. Plautus was banned rather soon after arriving, especially considering that nothing he did (as far I can tell) was simple vandalism. He had (and still has) some bad habits, but that's not surprising for a newcomer, and can be corrected. He also has a bad temper, but if he can control that, he can still be a useful contributor. Isomorphic 06:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that minutes before Plautus offered his humble and sincere apology he also added a few new things to the form and structure of this page? I guess I'm not as optimistic as you guys are about this new leaf that Plautus is promising to turn over, especially considering that he's made similar promises in the past week and broke them within minutes, literally. I think getting blocked three of four times in as many days and directly contributing to at least 5 pages being locked is just a warm up. I hope I'm wrong, it won't be the first time. And Silsor, you must have the patience of a saint or especially thick skin to not be a little angry with the very rough treatment you got from Plautus in those emails. --SheikYerBooty 07:10, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Plautus satire's first edit to the Columbia article appears to be this edit from 24.79.3.230 (contributions), which includes as part of the edit a link to his http: //www.geocities.com/plautus_satire/columbia/ site (remove the extra space in the link, note that it may be unavailable at times due to bandwidth consumption). Briefly, it rewrote the Shuttle accident article to suggest that the US government shot down the shuttle to replace it with a different space plane which would be better able to work with the ISS orbital "weapons platform". This is consistent with the views he's expressed elsewhere, so it seems safe to assume that it is Plautus satire. As a fairly typical conspiracy theory edit, it was rapidly reverted.

Next try was with an account and misquoted "The San Francisco Chronicle later reported that an amateur San Francisco astronomer has taken five photographs with a Nikon 880 digital camera that depicted an orange beam or bolt of energy or electrical activity tinged with purple striking the Columbia just is it began breaking up" what the San Francisco Chronicle reported "that appears to show a purplish electrical bolt striking the craft" and "a glowing purple rope of light corkscrews down toward the plasma trail, appears to pass behind it, then cuts sharply toward it from below. As it merges with the plasma trail, the streak itself brightens for a distance, then fades" [2]. The rewording appears intended to support the notion that it was a beam from the ground striking the shuttle, also skipping the theory in the SF Chronicle story that it was camera shake during a 4-6 second explosure, which is what the Columbia Accident Investigation Board subsequently concluded.

I haven't examined the other two articles where he managed to get pages protected, so I have no view on what happened with them.

→Raul654 seems initially to have missed that IP edit and thought that the later, more innocuous edits were reasonable, so protected the page to the version including them. Subsequent experience and investigation appears to have persuaded →Raul654 that the initial impression was mistaken, for he later blocked Plautus satire.

Given the actions so far, and the edit histories and discussions, it's my view that any editing by Plautus satire would need to be limited to articles not relating to his conspiracy theories, for he's demonstrated the desire to subtly distort the facts to support the conspiracy theory he advances and all edits he makes to any related articles will need to be very carefully considered, to eliminate subtle distortions he can point others to as support for those theories. Jamesday 08:51, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have suggested on his talk page that he should consider moving to areas of Wikipedia where his views will be less controversial. I hope that he will take this advice. Isomorphic 08:58, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New information

Unfortunately it's now apparent that Plautus has rejected your advice and instead starting making edits to several pages, including Big Bang, Talk:Big Bang, September 11, 2001 attacks, Apollo moon landing hoax accusations and now more inflammatory comments left on Raul654's talk page. --SheikYerBooty 21:37, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Balanced against the optimistic hope of any potential contribution that Plautus satire may make in the future is the fact that he is making a net negative contribution at the moment. He has taken up an enormous amount of person-hours of other people's time that could have otherwise been spent on more productive contributions rather than cleaning up his messes. Curps 19:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

After all he has promised, Plautus satire is today making crank-POV edits to Big Bang ("Alfven has shown that redshift dos not correlate with distance" etc etc) and he is starting an edit war at September 11, 2001 attacks. There is a reason for calling his behavior incorrigible. Curps 21:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Every please read user talk:Plautus satire. I have been good to my word since last night, and ignore him, despite my deepest desire not to. Today, he started the discussion by leaving an inflammatory statement on my talk page. I responded calmly on his talk page. The discussion continued on his talk page, with him trying to goad me into a fight. At the same time, after Isomorphic's advice to move onto less controvserial topics, he went right over to Big Bang and started the same thing there. I hereby renounce my attempts to ignore him, and urge that this be sent to the mediation commitee, with a strong recommendation from me that he be banned. →Raul654 21:45, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Since it is clear he is back to making the POV edits for which he was banned 3 times, I would request that a sysop ban him for 24 hours while others can consider his recent actions. I would do it myself, but that would only fuel his theory that I have a vendetta against him. →Raul654 22:03, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)

Good grief. I just now saw that Plautus is getting into September 11. He apparently believes that we're being lied to about the identity of the hijackers. Coupled with his other beliefs (that we're being lied to about the shuttle, that we're being lied to about the moon landings) I really do wonder about his sincerity. Can it really be that he believes all this stuff, or is he in fact just trolling? Evercat 23:42, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was asked to summarize here the activity of Plautus Satire at the Yahoo Apollo-hoax user group, where I am a regular poster. I can confirm that Plautus is currently banned there, as well as at Bad Astronomy, for persistent rude behavior and inflammatory and profane language. He has also posted at ApolloHoax in the past, but abandoned it; he is not officially banned there. In the Yahoo group, Plautus posted approximately 400 messages over a six-day period. A significant number of them were nothing more than vulgar insults aimed at other posters. His tone was uniformly condescending, even when he was clearly in the wrong on factual questions. Here is an archive of the thread in question. (Jay) 208.177.141.226 17:39, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wait a second. Plautus? Rude? Posting inflammatory material? Spamming large numbers of people in a short period of time? Are you sure you're talking about the same Plautus satire? →Raul654 20:53, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I really wanted to stay out of this, but have been asked twice for my opinion...who knew people cared what I thought? :-) At any rate, I'll say that my impression of Plautus is someone who is often factually inaccurate (my impression, Plautus -- you're free to disagree) and who "assumes bad faith". We had one lengthy discussion on Plautus's user talk page where PS said several times I ought to be de-sysopped before we realized that PS had made a typo which changed the meaning of a sentence, and we actually agreed. What do I think, then? Perfect person to enter mediation with the people who are raising these charges. I think people could deal a little more nicely and fairly with Plautus. I think Plautus definitely needs to find a way to hold fringe opinions without insisting that they are "truth" that must be treated on a par with established scientific opinion (though I think many of Plautus's ideas have a place here in some respect -- how much.....well, I'm not one of the science people around here, and don't feel qualified to comment more than I have). I think Plautus also needs to understand that most of us aren't on a crusade against him/her, and that all we want is a good encyclopedia....which we perceive is threatened by someone with strong biases they seem unwilling to correct for, and a foul mouth when opposed. Sorry to speak so bluntly, Plautus, but I think you need to hear the truth about yourself. I also think you're a person who can learn from this experience and come to an agreement with the element in this community that's ticked off at you right now. Mediation is an excellent solution which I hope will be pursued as soon as possible. Good luck to all parties involved. Jwrosenzweig 04:51, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have been following this from a distance without reading the contributions in depth. I don't know how many physicists are out there, but some the user in question's comments somewhat fall within my area of expertise, especially regarding plasma physics. I can't pretend to settle the truth of scientific questions here, but I can look things over and tell you my opinion of where his contributions in the science articles fall in spectrum between accepted theory and crankery. -- Decumanus 05:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My findings, based on engagement of user at Talk:Quasar and observations on other science pages: User in question is a classic troll. Cleverly uses legitimate open questions in science as platform to insert questionable material. Main strategy is to rely on non-expertise of other editors to create confusion. Main tactic is to introduce fringe or crank material, then to manipulate a debate between his fringe position and established theory, and then to put other editors on the defensive by demanding they defend accepted theory to his personal satisfaction, using their inability to do so as proof of the correctness of his crank/fringe position. Mixes wild speculation and fringe theories with infrequent valid edits in order to sew confusion about his intentions. When found to be manifestly wrong in fact, resorts quickly to personal attacks, distortion of other's words, and editing of other users' comments on talk pages. Often has cited published sources that have nothing to do with the position he is defending (could be based on his own ignorance of the scientific process). Often masks controversial edits with benign summary comments mimicking scientific jargon purporting to defend "observational reality". User in question seems to have no real interest in scientific truth but rather in creating on-going controversies centered on himself. Overall effect is to weaken alternative scientific viewpoints by putting them in the worst possible light. Occassionally retreats temporarily into "rehabilitated" behavior as a temporary ruse. Is probably pleased at the extreme attention being paid to him. Will soak up time and attention of Wikipedia community as long as he is allowed to edit. Vote rendered below after investigation. (note user in question's name derives from Titus Maccius Plautus and probably reflects his view of himself as the clever slave character undermining the "masters" of Wikipedia) -- Decumanus 18:06, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Laser star hypothesis - Well, his latest bit of crankery is insisting that the Hubble Space Telescope is really the Hubble spy satellite. When pressed to details on the talk page to back up that fantastic claim his response was: it was broken for three years, it has a design common with some other type of spy telescope and it can take pictures of the moon. I remain skeptical but you can see all the details at Talk:Laser star hypothesis Actually, the entire article is pretty wacky, the "overview" section is about lasers and then he sticks some bad info about quasars in at the end. --SheikYerBooty 04:36, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Astronomy - Another example of Plautus satire's fringe beliefs interfering with his ability to to make NPOV edits. Go to the page and check the caption of the first photo, now see what Plautus wanted. Apparently it's a "plasma" discharge crater now, not an impact crater. He also removed the credit for the Apollo flight, since he thinks that was a big fake. A few minutes later he makes this change and inserts more "plasma" comments, this time they get credit for creating the tracks of dust devils on Mars. --SheikYerBooty 01:44, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Wiki gone wild! Plautus turns up the heat and starts laying the smack down! Won't someone think of the children? (Caution! You must be at least 18 or accompanied by an adult to click that link.) --SheikYerBooty 23:46, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm just amazed that this buffoon has been tolerated for as long as he has... -- ChrisO 23:50, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

One page that has now received a lot of , um, attention from him is Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. I must say that I cannot decide whther he is someone living on a separate plane of reality or simply a bizarre 'gadfly'. Arno 07:29, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Update: I've gone to Jimbo and officially requested arbitration with Plautus Satire. Hopefully, he'll agree. IMHO, this has gone on far, far too long. →Raul654 00:11, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

I've seconded this. Arno 07:29, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Straw poll

Plautus satire is a vandal or troll or deliberately disruptive and should be banned

He's a hopeless liar. He has apologized several times for his actions, and then goes right back to them. We don't need people like him wasting our time. →Raul654 21:45, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
SheikYerBooty 05:23, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
Curps 05:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
~~JDR 11:23, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) [if continued actions don't alter or if conspiracies are treated as fact without needed evidience]~~
John Owens 11:31, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)
Evercat 23:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
PMA 02:10, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)
Jamesday 03:56, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
No-One Jones 05:21, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) -- when is he going to start editing reptilian humanoid and David Icke ?
silsor 16:14, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC) - he rejected NPOV policy when I brought it up
BCorr ¤ Брайен 17:01, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) - just another troll...see [3] for his similar behavior elsewhere.
ChrisO 17:36, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) Based on his record on Wikipedia so far, I think he's more trouble than he's worth. He plainly has no intention of playing by the rules.
- (Added) I think being a good Wikipedian isn't just about being able to contribute material - you also have to be able to work with other people (this is a collaborative encyclopedia, after all). Plautus shows few signs of being able or willing to do this.
Maximus Rex 21:26, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
WhisperToMe 01:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) - Adding vote due to Columbia vandalism and because he made Evercat leave.
- That's not entirely fair - the stress was getting to me, but it has done before on occasions like this. I made myself leave. :-) (I'm still not back, but I am checking in occasionally). Evercat 12:47, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Isomorphic 04:44, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) - I have tried to be patient, I have tried to reason with him, and have defended him more than once. My time has been wasted. IHBT. IHL.
Tim Starling 05:04, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Decumanus.(see above) 19:05, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Flockmeal 20:36, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)
Roadrunner 21:58, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
—Eloquence (no interest in complying with policies)
Arno He is just too much of a problem.
Imran 20:00, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
TomND 23:03, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC) After seeing how he literally picked a fight on Talk:Chess, and his continual "plama" rantings, his reality and everyone else's obviously diverge.

Plautus satire is a useful contributor and should not be banned

Middle ground should be reached. I choose to add my vote in this section because it seems he has contributed a minimum of one useful comment (ie plasma related mechanisms in black holes, 'the plasma-focus'.) And while I am in no way supporting the majority of his edits, he does at least dare to bring up overlooked facts, errrrrr overlooked theories, historical trends, etc.. I mean. However, in absolutely no way should he (or anybody) be allowed to completely remove contents of any talk page, be it their own or not. Non-factual edits should be removed from the articles (ie Alfven did not directly contribute to the rebuttal of the Hubble interpretation, even though he was not a supporter of it.) Plautus DOES need to calm down. A certain level of tact must be reserved when fighting the mainstream. -Ionized 21:03, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that anyone doing such things should be given a second chance. For him, that came after he was banned the first time. Then he went right back to doing what he was banned for, and he was banned again (chance #3). Then he harassed silsor. Then Silor (with saintly patience, I must admit) unblocked him, and he went right back to doing it again (chance #4). I warned that he could contribute, but he would have to follow the rules (chance #5), he ignored it, so I blocked him. He spammed the mailing list. Ed unblocked him (chance #6)because it hasn't gone through the proper channels. He comes back, and he goes right back to it on talk:blackhole. Bowing to advice from Isomorphic, I agree to ignore him (chance #7), and (<24 hours later) he tries to goad me into a fight. So by my rather conservative estimate, he's had more opportunities to prove he is a good editor than anyone deserves, and he's pissed them away each time. →Raul654 21:11, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

ok, Id like to simply retract my vote then :) -Ionized 22:32, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC) (I've added strike comments to show this →Raul654)

I'm sorry to break the current consensus, but I'm afraid I have to say this: Plautus satire did contribute to the Iridology talk page in a constructive and absolutely refreshing, knowledgeable manner. I do not know him, nor did I ever receive answers from my expressions of sympathy for him/her, but I can see from the Iridology talk page (Iridology currently blocked without edit wars) that yes, (s)/he can really help blocked issues advance. Happy editing - irismeister 16:38, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence that Plautus is a "problem user". Lirath Q. Pynnor

Plautus satire is not currently a useful contributor, but has enough potential that we ought to seek a middle ground

~~Isomorphic 06:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)~~ See above.
Only if he will accept a limitation which requires avoiding articles in any way related to his conspiracy theories, except where those articles (like the Apollo Moon Landing conspiracy theory article he also edited, as 24.79.3.230) are clearly labelled as such. Jamesday 09:03, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) Changed because of subsequent behavior: looks like attention-getting trolling. Jamesday 03:56, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Cyp 09:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
JDR 11:20, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) [mabey, if qualification to his edits are possible to explicitly satate that such theories are not widely held (I have seen the "death ray" - shuttle thing; conspiracy theories are noteable (if only to be refuted))] ... though I kinda like it [but probably is false =-]
I looked at his user contributions, and the majority of his edits are made to talk: black hole. NASA 13:28, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Look again at his contributions. Arno 07:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus satire is currently the target of a personal vendetta being waged by Raul654, SheikYerBooty, Curps and others

~~I do not support this view but I do think that Plautus satire believes that we're trying to squelch what he believes to be the truth of his conspiracy theories. Jamesday 09:03, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)~~ (Note - Jamesday has subsequently changed his vote to "vandal/troll" →Raul654)
Same as above. Cyp 09:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Not only I do believe this view to be correct, but I have hard data to build a complete case for anyone to judge it in an informed manner. Please contact me for details. Please do that quickly, before I am banned again for what I believe to be fictitious reasons, which have an explicit track record for anyone's audit :-) As an experienced Wiki survivor of a campaign of non-reverted insults, abusive bans, censorship, smear, libel, slander and character assasination, I want to share survival technology with everybody. Medicine is about prevention. Malevolent Misrepresentation is about Disinformation :-) Epidemiology teaches that the best treatment is prevention :-) Sincerely, Dr Dan Jipa, MD - an active medical doctor, not a troll - although I have been begged by a Gang of Four to admit lies, being a troll, etc - for the purpose of censorhip of information, and covering up their own demonstrated behavior. Thank you all dearly, and happy editing - irismeister 12:43, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)
Lirath Q. Pynnor I think its pretty clear they are being overly rude towards Plautus.

Rebuttal

Anyone who cares to examine this case in further detail can go here to see just one of many instances where I was insulted, derided and paternally chided while keeping a calm tone. Note the passage of mine that illicits charges of condescension and insult on me: It is a passage that makes a joke about divine intervention. - Plautus satire 16:07, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually. I was trying to be helpful. Plautus really does need to do some basic research and read some introductory books on astronomy. Roadrunner 22:10, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The comments in question are perfectly reasonable. They are POV, but not abusive, and they are comments made directly to you, not edits of articles.

This is in marked contrast to the obscenities you spewed in User:Silsor/fanmail ("dumb mother fucker", "ignorant son of a bitch", "that idiot Roadrunner", "Goddamned stupid nazi mother fucker, unban me you stupid piece of shit", "UNBAN ME YOU FUCKING IGNORANT ASSHOLE", "What is this fucking bullshit?") and Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation ("mother fucker", "assholes", "fat bitch"). Curps 16:45, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

And for the record, using language like that to describe other wikipeidans is abusive and (IMO) Plautus' repeated use of it alone is justification for banning. →Raul654 17:38, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

And for the record, I did not put this material on wikipedia (with the exception of ~~asshole~~ and ~~mother fucker~~ and bitch. And when I used the word "bitch" it was to describe a private email I sent to Rual654 wherein I called him a "fat bitch". I have since apologized and stricken this profanity but Raul654 continues to hold a grudge on this issue. That is his right. - Plautus satire 16:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I got one of those profanity-filled emails too, I should mention, despite being involved in only the very most peripheral ways. I've considered framing it, it's the most invective I can recall ever having directed against me. :) Bryan 03:15, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know you were involved even peripherally. Morbid curiousity forces me to ask: what did he get upset with you over? Even Jack wants him banned, so it's not like those two are in league :-D Isomorphic 06:01, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your email was in response to your expression of support for banning me unilaterally without valid reasons, Bryan Derksen. Just to clear this up for you, you're not involved, except as a spectator. - Plautus satire 06:53, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus on the road to reform? Not holding my breath

From WikiEN-L, posted this afternoon by Jimmy Wales [4] :

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

I'm inclined to agree with Erik Moeller's followup [5] :

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.

I can only agree with Erik. Plautus has had his chance; he's received advice from many sources; but he is continuing to cause aggravation and disruption wherever he goes. I think Plautus's problems are more fundamental than just a lack of experience or knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. I can't think of a single other user who has caused so much disruption and angered so many users in so short a time. -- ChrisO 00:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would just like to ask all the frenetic posters in the email list who are crying for my blood to please have a little more patience with the mediation process. Dealing with two people who are openly hostile with each other is not easy, and I appreciate Tuf-Kat going to bat for Curps and myself. Please let the process work, don't work the process. When I say work the process, I mean, for example, ridiculing the arbitration committee for not acting with more haste and without regard for other, better common solutions. - Plautus satire 02:53, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Every second remain here to cause problems is proof that the system is broken. Your pleas for restraint are hollow and self-serving. Your inability to answer a simple interrogative (On the mediation requests - "Plautus, yes or no, will you accept mediation") sentence proves you are only here to caues trouble. →Raul654 02:56, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Let's Bury the Hatchet, Raul654

Why are you so hostile toward me, Raul654? We do not know each other and are not likely to encounter each other outside this forum, so surely while I am here you can at least be civil and reasonable toward me. I think to do otherwise would be to verify the hypothesis that Plautus satire is being persecuted for personal reasons. I can assure you, we both want the same thing here, to find and remove unsupportable crap from the entries, and perhaps, if we're lucky, to insert something nobody else knew. - Plautus satire 03:03, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, if nobody else knows it it's not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research.—Eloquence 03:07, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC) (Plautus satire attempted to resection this combative, off-topic post but was confounded by Raul654, who insists that it stay right here in the midst of Plautus satire's attempts to wage peace. - Plautus satire 03:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC))

Okay, I already read Angela's page about what wikipedia is not, but thanks for the tip. Now can you please move this out of my patient attempts to end the hostilities? Thanks in advance for your patience. - Plautus satire 03:09, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am hostile to you because it amazes me to think of all the time I and other have wasted watching you to make sure you obey the rules. You've driven away good users. At any time during the past 2 weeks you have been here, you could have decided - "Hrmm... I think I'll make inarguably good edits, and that way, people won't think bad of me". You could have gone over to golf or eraser or any of a million other articles and helped out there with obviously good edits. Instead, you go from one article to another, adding your crack pot theories and half-assed evidence that (more often than not) doesn't support you. Now that the tide of public sentiment has risen against you and you are going to become the first person that the (broken) system actually manages to get rid of, you come here and urge restraint. Coming from you, this is laughable! - when have you shown restraint during the past 2 weeks? You want to bury the hatchet - I'm not buying it. Neither is anyone else. →Raul654 03:11, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Plautus Digging a Hole for Hatchets

Slow down please, Raul654, I may get confused. Are you saying that you are hostile to me because you've wasted your time watching me?

Instead of bickering over whose fault it is let's just agree to take our respective shares of blame and call off the overt hostilities and let time tell the tale. Do you think if I am merely a troll gaming the process that it won't come out in the end? Please be a bit more patient, and I ask you again not to be so hostile to me.

A simple thing like breaking up a paragraph can make it seem much less

frantic. - Plautus satire 03:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You have had the wrong attitude since the day you got here, and you haven't changed a bit. Instead of bickering over whose fault it is let's just agree to take our respective shares of blame and call off the overt hostilities and let time tell the tale. - the blame is entirely yours. Notice, virtually the entire community wants you gone. As I said on the mailing list, that doesn't happen by accident. Do you think if I am merely a troll gaming the process that it won't come out in the end? - yes. Please be a bit more patient, and I ask you again not to be so hostile to me. - No. You've had two weeks, 3 bans, and how many edit wars have you caused? 10? 20? How many people have tried giving you friendly advice about NPOV and wikiettiquite, only to be rebuffed? Tell me Plautus - at what point should the we (the community at large) decide that someone is incorrigible? The answer is: we already have. →Raul654 03:31, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Raul654, can you please address my concern above where I point out your own statement wherein you admit you wasted your time watching me and that is the reason you are so hostile toward me? - Plautus satire 03:33, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To answer your question - No, I'm hostile to you because you're a proven vandal. You get your kicks from by destroying what others have volunteered their time to create. If I paid more attention to you than others, it's because I am less willing to pass the buck and let you get away with it. →Raul654 03:40, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

So you are now changing your story? Can you please strike out the comments you made that you no longer agree with so I know which is which? Thanks in advance. - Plautus satire 03:47, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Raul you are way out of line, people are allowed to go around the wiki and add crack-pot theories. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research and consider whether the rewrite of the Columbia accident article [6] under the IP used on the first day was a good example of how to describe unusual, unpublished theories. Jamesday 07:14, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Plautus Rounds up Hatchets

Raul654, I'd just like to say that I appreciate your restraint. I know the temptation is there to simply be glib and smug, but that is not going to solve this problem. We have to both agree to be civil and reasonable toward each other or we will not have peace. One can take hostility only so long before one becomes hostile. - Plautus satire 03:52, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'll make you this deal. It will be my last one, and the terms are non-negotiable. I will ignore you for the remainder of your tenure on Wikipedia, however long that might be. However, you must agree to make inarguably good edits. No more crank theories. No more alternate versions. You have shown a complete inability to judge NPOV (which, to be fair, can be hard sometimes). So you agree to stay clear of articles for which it might be diffcult to judge NPOV. Stick to golf and eraser and whatnot. Breach of this is automatically grounds for the arbitration committee. Yes or no, do you accept? →Raul654 03:58, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea I was offering you any "deal" or "bargain" or "dark compact". What I offer is very simply to be civil and reasonable to you for the remainder of my stay. I feel this will help us both. You are under no obligation to return either the civility or the reason. - Plautus satire 04:02, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was offering you a deal. It is still on the table. Do you accept the conditions? →Raul654 04:14, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Plautus Sharpens One Hatchet, Why Throw Away Useless Hatchets?

[7]

Raul654, I have given this a bit of thought and I think I know how to explain it to you more adequately.

I am trying to achieve an end to overt hostilities between you and myself.
In order to achieve that peace, I am offering to be civil and reasonable with you.
If you do the same, there will be peace. If you do not, there will be no peace.

Note that in no way is this process dependent upon a deal or bargain, it is simple cause and effect. I do not need a mechanism to enforce this peace, I merely have to make it. If there are hostilities between you and myself, and I am not the cause, you will inevitably be seen as the cause. Do you want that? I don't. Enforcement is not necessary here, so I feel this puts us both on the same bit of ground with equal footing. What I want to do is take your hand so we can both get off this peak and down into the trenches to do some real work.

Now let's take your proposal.

Imposes arbitrary conditions below:
- Plautus satire must not post to any entries with potential for NPOV issues.
- Plautus satire must propose no theories that are not known to Raul654.
- Plautus satire must never submit an edition that is questionable in any fashion.
- Plautus satire will be ignored by Raul654 indefinitely.
In return for these arbitrary mandates, Plautus satire receives the following benefits:
- <under construction>
Stipulations:
- This offer is not in any way negotiable under any circumstances.
- This is the last offer of Raul654's life (hopefully).

Now. Where is my incentive to accept your gracious offer? Regretfully I decline your proposition. I feel my interests are much better served if I am civil and reasonable. - Plautus satire 04:21, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I should point out that you were given a chance almost a week ago to make peace with Raul, and you threw it away. He agreed to stay away from you, and you responded by trying to provoke him. So it's not terribly surprising that he doesn't feel like negotiating now. Isomorphic 04:31, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not negotiating with him, I'm offering peace. - Plautus satire 04:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Raul654, I have to say I have no confidence in your adherence to my self-imposed set of conditions (to be reasonable and civil), based on your reluctance to say you will, combined with your frantic insistence that I strike some superfluous dark compact with you. - Plautus satire 04:35, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My goals are twofold. I want to build a good encyclopedia, which in turn requires an end to the edit wars you are constantly involved in. Now, I do not desire conflict, but making peace with you is a secondary goal to building a good encyclopedia. So why should I want peace with you if you will continue the edit warring, which only hurts my primary goal? What guarentee do I have that you are going to be reasonable, when all the evidence up to now points to the contrary? →Raul654 04:39, Feb 26, 2004 (UTC)

Plautus temp-banned pending arbitration committee ruling

For those of you who don't follow the mailing list (I didn't until about 2 days ago), I proposed this compromise, that Plautus be banned until such time as the arbitration committee could render a verdict. In the light of Plautus' behavior last night, Jimbo agreed to. Just thought I'd let you all know. →Raul654 01:37, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

The Plautus timeline project

I have been asked to provide the arbitration committee with evidence as to why Plautus should stay banned. I've started a timeline at User:Raul654/Plautus. I would ask anyone with relavant information to go there and help me fill it in. In particular, make sure to cite page diffs. Thanks for your help. →Raul654 03:36, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)