[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia e-mail (Raul654 repeated unwarranted bans) (fwd)

Tue Feb 17 15:32:42 UTC 2004

I got this message in my postbox through Wikipedia e-mail. I have no
interest in dealing with this matter, and am sending it here hoping that
someone else (maybe the mediation committee?) will.

Andre Engels

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 15:19:11 GMT
From: Plautus satire <plautus at shaw.ca>
To: Andre Engels <engels at uni-koblenz.de>, Andre Engels <engels at uni-koblenz.de>
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail (Raul654 repeated unwarranted bans)

Please allow me to have a few moments of your time.

I have been the victim of what I feel is a very unfair banning by an admin using the ID Raul654. This banning started several days ago when I began editing several entries as a new contributing user. In this time I have added completely new entries ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Aquaponics http://en.wikipedia.org/Phytochemicals http://en.wikipedia.org/Watercress http://en.wikipedia.org/Garden_cress ) and I have made factual error correction of a few other entries that have remained in place. In particular (since this is an entry that has led to my banning) I corrected an error which stated Albert Einstein was offered the first presidency of Israel, when in fact he had been offered the SECOND presidency. For my insistence that this material and other material belongs in the Albert Einstein entry, I was banned.

Repeated reversions of my edits were done without explanation on the talk page after my ban was lifted. After three attempts to keep a valid edit in an entry I was banned again. Once again the ban was lifted and once again numerous reversions of my edits were performed without discussion or explanation on the talk page. The various page histories will show this from a careful examination. In all three cases where I was banned it was to settle disputed edits. The wikipedia guidelines state that bans and page protections are ONLY to be used in cases of persisent vandalism. I made every edit in good faith and in the end Raul654 decided to use my removal of my OWN posts (which I felt had become extraneous and needlessly adding bloat to a large talk page) from a talk page as an excuse to ban me yet again.

All of this clearly illustrates the double standard Raul654 has been using to ban at least me, but probably many others. If he disagrees with them, he uses their persistence in presenting facts as evidence that they are a troll, a vandal or whatever word he chooses to use. In this case clearly the ban was unwarranted. If he agrees with them, he rewards their persistence in reversion and claims it is a service and not the vandalism that it becomes when a disagreeable sort does the same thing. I was discussing reasonably in talk pages every edit I was making, and was greeted with stony silence and automatic kneejerk reversions. Other users in many cases have stepped in to mediate, to draft "compromise" versions which do not ignore new facts I presented, and in some cases these versions have been stamped out as well. Once again, the page histories reveal all of this.

So I appeal to you to help me get this ban lifted once again, and to ask for advice in dealing with Raul654. Clearly he has made it his personal mission to ban me. He has done it twice over the span of three days, and in both cases it was for edit conflicts made in good faith by all parties, not a case of persistent vandalism as he suggests. Once again, the page histories do indeed show this quite clearly, when indexed with their respective talk page histories.

I should also point out that I was banned for doing something that I admit was a mistake. I deleted somebody else's edits to my talk page, because I felt they were slanderous and inaccurate. I was under the impression my talk page was owned by me and could be modified as I saw fit. I have since apologized for deleting others' edits from my talk page, and have not deleted any since. I have deleted my own messages, as I mentioned above, when I felt they had become pointless, extraneous or simply just bloat. I feel this is every wikipedia user's responsibility to cut down on bloat in "current" editions. If I am wrong I'm willing to be flexible on that, but I definitely do think there needs to be a way for people to delete their own edits without sanction, especially on the talk pages. It's been pointed out by many people at many times that talk pages are not a chat room, if there is information not serving a purpose there I feel it should be deleted.

To sum up I would just like to state that I am a good faith user of wikipedia and not a vandal. Please do not allow Raul654's personal feelings about me to prevent me from contributing in a healthy manner to wikipedia. This is a tremendous resource, and one that I feel I can help improve for all. While I may be new to the "culture" on wikipedia and while I may be very poor at becoming popular, I know for a fact my contribution history ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&hideminor=0&target=Plautus+satire&limit=500&offset=0 ) shows I can contribute in a meaningful way and am not a "troll" or a "vandal". Perhaps I have different ideals of how wikipedia should get there, but I agree with all as to where it should go. It is and should remain a storehouse of factual information in a usable format, not a game played to score points instead of making point.

I reiterate my request for aid in removing this ban, and in dealing with Raul654 on a more permanent basis. If a culture change is what's needed then I can patiently wait until the culture changes. But if there is another remedy to Raul654's apparent persecution of me on flimsy grounds, I would like to avail myself of it.

Thank you for your time,

Codie Vickers (Plautus satire)