Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Curps (talk | contribs) at 22:39, 19 February 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:Plautus satire (contribs) (talk)
User:24.79.3.230 (contribs) (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 especially User:Silsor/fanmail, which is personal email correspondence containing profanity on Silsnor's user page.

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)

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)

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.
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.
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. 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" [1]. 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)

Straw poll

Plautus satire is a vandal and/or troll and should be banned

  1. 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)
  2. SheikYerBooty 05:23, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  3. Curps 05:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  4. JDR 11:23, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC) [if continued actions don't alter or if conspiracies are treated as fact without needed evidience]

Plautus satire is a useful contributor and should not be banned

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

  1. silsor 06:46, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Isomorphic 06:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  3. 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)
  4. Cyp 09:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  5. 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 =-]
  6. 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)

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

  1. 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)
  2. Same as above. Cyp 09:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire&oldid=2450509"