Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 02

Curps et al v. Plautus satire

I would like to request some outside intervention for a situation that has arisen. The user Curps seems intent on reversioning every edit I make, without explanation in the summaries or on talk pages. I've made several changes to entries recently, and all of them seem to have been reverted by Curps, so either he is watching the same pages I am, or watching my contributions, and reversioning them without explanation. I would like for somebody to epxlain to Curps that he needs to discuss reversions, especially if he is going around unmaking everything one user (me) does. - Plautus satire 01:32, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Curps reversions of Plautus satire as shown by page histories:[1][2][3][4][5]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Plautus_satire&curid=467565&action=history]

Editing without explanation because Plautus satire has repeatedly edited Talk pages to delete and distort the comments of others, despite being repeatedly warned not to and despite being banned and reinstated at least three times.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire

Curps 01:39, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Curps, I want you to think very carefully before you answer me now. Are you saying that you are reversioning my editions without explanations because of some standing editions I have made to talk pages? Are you saying you are trying to punish me somehow for not heeding your warnings and for being unbanned? Mediation please? I don't feel it's productive for me to engage in intercourse with Curps any further as he seems to have a very personal vigilante agenda and is using wikipedia as his stomping grounds. - Plautus satire 02:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I suppose these are the tactics they have decided to adopt. I have been banned for simple disputed editions by Raul654, and he is actively engaged in trying to eliminate me from wikipedia (though he claims on my talk page he is ignoring me, then not ignoring me, then ignoring me, not ignoring and ignoring again on the advice of others). I presume their intention now is to keep attacking every edition I make until somebody else steps in, hoping that I will become frustrated and violate public policy. - Plautus satire 02:17, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I notice looking at the talk pageWikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire page it seems that there is something of a "gang" that regularly dishes the dirt on me. Hopefully it will not become necessary for me to implicate Raul654, SheikYerBooty, and Evercat, as it seems they are engaged in an active, concerted effort to limit and/or cut off my contributions to wikipedia entirely. Perhaps Curps was chosen to be the sacrificial goat in this case, doing the "dirty work," though it seems all of the people I mention above at one point have reversioned my edits without consideration or banned me on flimsy grounds. Clearly there is an open, concerted effort by these people to eliminate my contributions, hopefully we can get some mediation on this issue to calm people down before they again step over the line "dealing with" me. - Plautus satire 02:12, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Golly, it looks like you have implicated me, by name and by using et al in your section title. So, now that I'm implicated I'm ready to dance with you. --SheikYerBooty

Is there anyone monitoring this forum who is not personally involved in this ongoing vendetta who can lend a hand dealing with these people who will not cease being hostile toward me? I just want them to listen to reason and end this petty war they keep trying to start. - Plautus satire 04:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I offer my assistance. I am a members advocate. Pleased to meet you :) Sam Spade 06:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Sam Spade. I'm not sure how this works as a formal process, but what I would like to happen is for you to politely request of these named people that they stop fixating on me and instead focus on improving wikipedia. They have failed to make their case that I have nothing to contribute to wikipedia, as evidenced by the fact that their flimsy bans did not hold. Now they seem hell-bent on driving me away in whatever fashion they can. If you think some other solution would be better then I am ready to listen to advice because I do not know how to get these people to stop this. - Plautus satire 14:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have expressed several times my reluctance to engage in intercourse with these people, yet as you can see below they have not heeded my requests to await mediation and instead have continued attacking me and my editions. For this reason I am going to take a break from this issue for a while, if I do not respond to attempts to compromise it's because I am unavailable. - Plautus satire 16:03, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. I guess I waited too long to step away from the computer. I see now Raul654 is intent on reversioning my request for mediation so that others can insert confrontational statements by others into my comments. *sigh* What is the point of requesting mediation if the request is turned into an argument? Can somebody please help me here? Why are Raul654 et al being allowed to victimize me like this? - Plautus satire 16:09, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As just one example, you completely altered Talk:Black_hole in a self-serving way from top to bottom, changing it beyond recognition and editing and distorting or outright deleting other people's comments. You were banned three times in less than one week, in part for editing talk pages in this way after repeated warnings, yet here you are again. It takes time and effort to compose comments on a talk page — can you really expect others to take this effort with you if the effort will be for nothing?

On my talk page, Isomorphic scolded me for baiting you. I had to explain to him that I hadn't... you had edited my comments by changing the header and adding material.

Do you really want to call even wider attention to your own actions? I am far from the only one who objects to your behavior:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire

Curps 02:14, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, this is very simple - will you, or will you not accept mediation? →Raul654 04:33, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the facts. Everybody please do nothing more than state that you would like mediation and which members of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee you would/would not accept as mediator. Sam, who do you want mediation with? Just Curps? If more than that, would everybody being contained in the "et al" accept Curps as a spokesman? Tuf-Kat 16:54, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

I for one am willing to accept Sam as a mediator or anyone other than one of the people I have named above. I don't even care if they are a sysop or admin or anything I just want somebody to politely ask that this personal agenda against me shared by this group be laid to rest. It's tedious enough to research and contribute without having to get into petty squabbles with people who have stated openly that their motivation is to get me eliminated. - Plautus satire 17:33, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There is already a process in place (poll) at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire. At the moment there are 12 votes to ban Plautus, 4 middle-ground, and only 1 in support. That process pre-dates Plautus's request for mediation here, and constitutes step 3 of Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Step 4 would be mediation. So by all means, let's move the process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire forward into step 4, mediation.

Sam Spade is already involved in his own dispute on this page, and is not a member of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, whereas Tuf-Kat is. In any case, since Raul654 is the originator of the process at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire, and has already negotiated with Plautus in the past, he may wish to take the lead in the mediation process.

Mediation "helps guide two or more disputants into forming an acceptable agreement", but I don't believe that Plautus will abide by anything he agrees to. He has broken previous promises literally within hours of being reinstated from his previous three bans. I believe this will inevitably end up in step 5, arbitration, as soon as Plautus breaks whatever mediation agreement he enters into. Curps 18:37, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I reject any notion that this "process" should be ruled by any single individual. When Raul654 started this process which I describe as a personal vendetta, he surrendered his rights to ownership of that process. I also reject any suggestion that Raul654 take part in mediation or arbitration of this crusade that has been staged by him. Staged by him, but no longer directed by him, much to his chagrin. I have accepted Sam as a mediator and have stated that I do not require mediation other than to politely ask that these users end their personal war they are currently waging against me. I feel attacking editions or selecting which editions to attack based on the user name associated with them does not serve the purposes of wikipedia and I would like somebody to politely ask them to stop. If I did some steps out of order or if I escalated some "process" already staged by Raul654, I make no apologies, but do express regret. I did nothing malicious but I may have in my ignorance done something wrong. If there is some process by which I can petition users to try and politely ask these vindictive users from persecuting me, I would avail myself of that instead. - Plautus satire 18:47, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade is not an official mediator. While he can mediate privately (as can any Wikipedian) that would be a separate matter from the official mediation process. If all parties agree to Sam as mediator then that's fine, the offical process can be put on hold to give the private mediation time to work. Of course, Sam would also have to agree to that, above he offered himself as an advocate not a mediator. The members of the Mediation Committee are listed at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee -- sannse 19:05, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) (see notes in this subsection regarding the inappropriateness of Sannse's participation in this issue) - Plautus satire 18:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sam is an advocate, not a mediator, and he is already involved in his own disputes. That rules him out.

If Plautus is refusing mediation with one of the parties he is in dispute with (Raul654), then according to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, this should move directly to step 5, arbitration. Curps 19:17, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It rules him out in an official mediator - any user (involved in other disputes or not) is at liberty to work with others in a private mediation. That's an extension of step 2 of dispute resolution. But getting back to the official process, Plautus satire didn't make clear who he was requesting mediation with. I think that has to be a first step (any refusal to mediation with Raul may be irrelevant if he is considered part of a separate dispute not currently being looked at)

So the questions we need answered are:

• Plautus satire:
  • Who do you mean by "et al."? We can't mediate with unknowns. Or do you want the mediation to be just between you, Curps and the mediator?
  • If you want official mediation with those people, which of the members of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee are you willing to work with?
• Curps:
  • Are you willing to try mediation with Plautus satire
  • Which of the members of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee are you willing to work with?

--sannse 19:40, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) (see notes in this subsection regarding the inappropriateness of Sannse's participation in this issue) - Plautus satire 18:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would be fine with Tuf-KAT. However, the process at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire predates Plautus's request for mediation here. Raul654 is following the step-by-step approach in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution to the letter, while Plautus is jumping the gun. It is all part of the same dispute, in any case. Plautus explicitly names Raul654 as part of his "et al.", yet now he is refusing mediation with him. I interpret that to mean he is refusing mediation, period. There are a number of people who have had difficulties with Plautus and they all deserve their say. As the originator of Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Plautus_satire, Raul654 has priority and his mediation with Plautus should go first. Curps 20:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Curps assessment is dead-on. Considering I am probably the person most familiar with Plautus' (alleged) transgressions, and that I'm the one who wrote the RFC, I would probably be the best choice to mediate with. For the record, Tuf-kat is fine by me as well. Now,Curps is also correct that I am following the dispute resolution guidelines to the letter. Now that Plautus has explictely rejected mediation, I put forth that this be moved to step five - arbitration. →Raul654 20:39, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

What I object to is Raul654 mediating between myself and Curps et al, as Raul654 is a member defined by et al, which sets up a conflict of interests. I do not wish for Raul654 to mediate between myself and Raul654, as that would defeat the purpose of obtaining impartial assistance. As for who the et al is, I have named them in this request for mediation. I do not object to mediation of this issue between myself and Curps et al. I have also stated that I want no formal action taken against Curps et al, and only wish to have another user politely ask them to cease this personal vendetta. They do not heed my requests to do so, perhaps they would heed the requests of others, I don't know. What I do know is that I am making every good will effort here to resolve this without having them punished for their behaviour. But if punishment is my only recourse to make them behave, I will seek punishment. - Plautus satire 21:14, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify - I have no wish to lead mediation. I intend to be a party TO the mediation - But Plautus has already rejected that. So unless he changes his mind, this should go to the arbitration committee. →Raul654 21:19, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Raul654, once again, please, please, please, I beg of you, please, read more carefully. Note where I state above: "I do not object to mediation of this issue between myself and Curps et al." You are in the et all, my dear, come give us a kiss and let's end this feud. - Plautus satire 21:22, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, as Raul says, there is no suggestion that Raul would mediate between you and Curps. The suggestion is that a member of the mediation committee would mediate between you, Curps and Raul. We cannot simply ask those you are in conflict with to "cease this personal vendetta" because that would be making a judgement that there is a personal vendetta - we are not in a position to take sides in that way. What the mediators can do is discuss with both sides the problems as the other sees them. That means we would talk to Curps and Raul about your view that they are attacking you and we would talk to you about any issues they felt needed to be addressed. Is this acceptable to you? Are you willing to enter into mediation on this basis? And if so which members of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee would you accept as mediator? sannse (talk) 21:31, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) (see notes in this subsection regarding the inappropriateness of Sannse's participation in this issue) - Plautus satire 18:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I can simply ask that somebody please ask Curps et al to cease this vendetta, and I have asked for precisely that. That is all I seek and that is all I intend to get. Raul654, why can't we be friends? Why are you pursuing this agenda against me? - Plautus satire 21:37, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As I said, if a mediator did that they would be taking sides and making a snap judgement that there is a "vendetta". And that is not what this process is about. It's about a neutral mediator facilitating discussions between those in conflict. Are you willing to enter mediation on that basis? We can't take this any further without an answer to that question -- sannse (talk) 21:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) (see notes in this subsection regarding the inappropriateness of Sannse's participation in this issue) - Plautus satire 18:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How many times do I have to answer "yes"? Are you going to keep asking until I say "no" and give you an excuse to call down the thunder and lightning? Give me a break. This is a transparent ploy. Getting other users censured on the basis of entrapment and technical violations is truly a pathetic act. I am not going to respond ever again to this question of accepting or entering mediation. I have stated numerous times already, I in fact initiated the reqeust, so what is this? I'd like to get some more attention on this issue, clearly there is already a lot of bias amongst the participants. - Plautus satire 22:14, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is now apparent that this attempt for peaceful outside intervention has met with complete failure. Too many users presently involved seem to be willingly or inadvertantly ignoring my repeated affirmitive responses to the acceptance of or entrance into mediation of this issue. I state now again, hopefully for the last time, that I want somebody to try and help myself and Curps et al to end this personality-based feud. - Plautus satire 22:17, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus satire, I understand that you feel you are answering clearly and I am genuinely tying to understand your position. I understand that you will accept mediation on the terms of somebody asking "Curps et al to cease this vendetta" but I must be sure you accept mediation on the terms the committee is able to offer. It's difficult when there appear to be contradictions in what you are saying. You say: "It is now apparent that this attempt for peaceful outside intervention has met with complete failure.", then you say "I state now again, hopefully for the last time, that I want somebody to try and help myself and Curps et al to end this personality-based feud". It's difficult for me to know which of these statements to take as your final position. But... the majority of your message seems to be stating that you are willing to enter mediation with Curps and Raul (who you have said is included in "et al") and so I will take that as your answer to my question. So, the next stage is for you to answer my other question: which of the Wikipedia:Mediation Committee are you willing to accept as your mediator? -- sannse (talk) 22:38, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) (see notes in this subsection regarding the inappropriateness of Sannse's participation in this issue) - Plautus satire 18:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've already named my advocate in this matter, Sam Spade, who volunteered to help me. - Plautus satire 22:50, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade is not a mediator. In order for mediation to take place we need to know which mediators you would accept. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee for a list of current mediators -- sannse (talk) 22:57, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) (see notes in this subsection regarding the inappropriateness of Sannse's participation in this issue) - Plautus satire 18:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Once again, what I asked for was an impartial observer to make my pleas to these people. I feel their personal opinions about me are clouding their assessments of my editions. For this reason I seek an impartial observer, merely to ask them politely to stop hounding me. If that's not mediation then that is not what I asked for. Since my initial request for a disinterested party to relay my concerns to these abusive users, some of these users have subtly indicated that they now seek mediation. I do not object to mediation, but I see no rush for volunteers to mediate here. Apparently nobody who is paying attention is up to the task. - Plautus satire 23:05, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Your edit summary ("I did not ask for but do not object to mediation") and the reply above are indeed clear. I understand your position. As for a lack of volunteers - it doesn't work that way round. What we need is for you to look at the list on Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. Then you should list the mediators you will accept, or name one mediator you would prefer, or name those mediators you won't accept, or state that you would accept any of the mediators (I repeat for clarity, Sam is not one of those on the list). -- sannse (talk) 23:22, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC) (see notes in this subsection regarding the inappropriateness of Sannse's participation in this issue) - Plautus satire 18:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sannse, I realize you're trying to help, but I have made it very clear I did not ask for mediation, so I am under no obligation to pick a mediator from this list you keep shoving in front of me. I asked for somebody to talk to these people on my behalf, and Sam Spade offered to mediate, but as it turns out he is only an advocate, which is exactly what I asked for in the first place. Now unless Sam Spade is withdrawing his initial offer to help, I already have chosen. Now all that remains is for Sam Spade to either help me, explain that his offer for help is withdrawn, or not help me despite his statements that he would. I can't force him to help me, unless he is on the mediator list, apparently, and I do not want to force Sam Spade to help me. If he has reconsidered his decision to help me he needs to let me know he now refuses the help he initially offered. - Plautus satire 01:50, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sannse is referring to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. silsor 01:57, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Plautus - either you accept mediation or it goes to the arbitration committeee - your choice. →Raul654 02:11, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

The following statements are all quoted from my own editions to this section of this page:

I just want them to listen to reason and end this petty war they keep trying to start.

I'm not sure how this works as a formal process, but what I would like to happen is for you to politely request of these named people that they stop fixating on me and instead focus on improving wikipedia.

I for one am willing to accept Sam as a mediator or anyone other than one of the people I have named above. I don't even care if they are a sysop or admin or anything I just want somebody to politely ask that this personal agenda against me shared by this group be laid to rest.

I have accepted Sam as a mediator and have stated that I do not require mediation other than to politely ask that these users end their personal war they are currently waging against me.

What I object to is Raul654 mediating between myself and Curps et al, as Raul654 is a member defined by et al, which sets up a conflict of interests. I do not wish for Raul654 to mediate between myself and Raul654, as that would defeat the purpose of obtaining impartial assistance. As for who the et al is, I have named them in this request for mediation. I do not object to mediation of this issue between myself and Curps et al. I have also stated that I want no formal action taken against Curps et al, and only wish to have another user politely ask them to cease this personal vendetta. They do not heed my requests to do so, perhaps they would heed the requests of others, I don't know. What I do know is that I am making every good will effort here to resolve this without having them punished for their behaviour.

I could go on, there are many summaries in the page histories where I explicitly state over and over again I do not object to the idea of mediation of this issue, and though my original request was for a simple message service to Curps et al, I would accept Sam Spade as a private mediator. He has since withdrawn his services from me in an official capacity as advocate in a formal mediation process, which I had asked for, but I have still accepted him as a private mediator. No one else in this case has accepted Sam Spade as a private mediator. If Sam Spade insists on withdrawing his assistance from this case, then another mediator must be chosen. - Plautus satire 06:40, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

To make this very simple, let's make the analogy to a trial. Curps and I intend to play the part of the prosecutor/plaintiff. You are the defendant. Sam offered to be your advocate - IE, your lawyer. You seem to think he is going to be the mediator - IE, the judge. This is not going to happen. The mediator must be chosen from the mediation committee and agreed upon by both parties. If you refuse to participate, it goes to arbitration. Make your choice. →Raul654 07:01, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I have been relived of my duties in regards to Platus. He seems to be inclined against mediation, and either way, it would seem best to move expeditiously towards arbitration. Sam Spade 07:12, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Raul654, thank you for trying to make this very simple. I shall endeavor to do the same. Since Sam Spade has now officially withdrawn from this mess (who can blame him) and since I have no other candidates in mind yet, perhaps you can offer some suggestions for who should mediate. - Plautus satire 07:15, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Would either of you object to me as a mediator? Tuf-Kat 07:26, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Not I. - Plautus satire 07:27, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

From comments on this page:

"I would be fine with Tuf-KAT." - Curps 20:30, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"For the record, Tuf-kat is fine by me as well." - →Raul654 20:39, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Tuf-Kat is fine by me, count me in. --SheikYerBooty 20:03, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

It would seem we have an agreement on this -- sannse (talk) 09:29, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) (see notes in this subsection regarding the inappropriateness of Sannse's participation in this issue) - Plautus satire 18:35, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sannse, you are not involved in this issue, and I think I have already asked you to please stay out of this since you have demonstrated that ou are not informed on this issue in addition to my above cited reason that you are not involved. So we have the fact that you are ignorant on this topic and the fact that you are not involved in this issue cited as two reasons for why you should stay out of this, Sannse. Please heed my wishes and stay out of this, as you clearly have nothing to add and are not a part of this process, but merely a spectator. I ask that you strike out your comments in this thread. - Plautus satire 18:33, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My participation was as a member of the mediation committee. But I'm happy to withdraw completely and not participate in any way as you have made it clear that that is your preference. My messages above stand, but I will not post on this matter again. Regards -- sannse (talk) 19:46, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

::::Clearly you were not acting in an official capacity, as I see no legitemate response to my request for mediation with Curps. Now I ask you again to strike (or delete, I don't care which) your irrelevant and unproductive comments that were clearly made in ignorance. (See explanation below where I clear up the confusion created by Curps et al.) - Plautus satire 19:52, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC) (After further review I withdraw this comment as I see Sannse did at least initially try to clear up process issues, I apologize for the repeated request, Sannse, thank you for withdrawing from this discussion since you are undesirous to mediate. - Plautus satire 19:56, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC))

Wonderful. Everybody either e-mail me (through the "e-mail this user" function) or have an e-mailed enabled through the same so that I can e-mail you tomorrow. Tuf-Kat 09:32, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Don't jump the gun, yet. Now all that remains is for SheikYerBooty, and Evercat, to agree to this mediation. - Plautus satire 18:31, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Aah, I was not fully informed. I am still confused... I'm not sure mediation between Crips, Raul, Evercat and SheikyerBooty, and Plautus is a good idea. Are you sure you don't want one of the four to act as a spokesman for the other three? Will you (Plautus) still accept mediation under any circumstances besides all five of you and me? Tuf-Kat 18:43, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

User:SheikYerBooty has informed me that he wishes to participate - I was going to mention it later. Evercat is on wiki-vacation. I am willing to act as spokesman, unless someone else really wants to do it. →Raul654 21:11, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm semi-vacationing. Tuf-Kat is fine. Evercat 21:23, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

What I want is what I've asked for, many times. If you would care to read all the comments above (I know it's tedious, I find myself having to remind myself continually of what I have said, luckily I've managed to remain consistent so it makes it easier). I tell you what, to save you some bother sifting, I will post a few instances above where I stated what I wanted. They are not all identical wishes, but they are all consistent. They are in chronological order (as best I can determine from the sigs and audit trails):

"some outside intervention for a situation that has arisen. The user Curps"

"for somebody to epxlain to Curps that he needs to discuss reversions, especially if he is going around unmaking everything one user (me) does"

"Curps,...Are you saying you are trying to punish me somehow for not heeding your warnings and for being unbanned? Mediation please? I don't feel it's productive for me to engage in intercourse with Curps any further as he seems to have a very personal vigilante agenda"

"some mediation on this issue to calm people down before they again step over the line"

"Is there anyone monitoring this forum who is not personally involved in this ongoing vendetta who can lend a hand dealing with these people who will not cease being hostile toward me? I just want them to listen to reason and end this petty war they keep trying to start."

"Thank you, Sam Spade. I'm not sure how this works as a formal process, but what I would like to happen is for you to politely request of these named people that they stop fixating on me and instead focus on improving wikipedia."

"I see now Raul654 is intent on reversioning my request for mediation so that others can insert confrontational statements by others into my comments. *sigh* What is the point of requesting mediation if the request is turned into an argument? Can somebody please help me here? Why are Raul654 et al being allowed to victimize me like this?"

"somebody to politely ask that this personal agenda against me shared by this group be laid to rest"

"I have accepted Sam as a mediator and have stated that I do not require mediation other than to politely ask that these users end their personal war they are currently waging against me."

"If there is some process by which I can petition users to try and politely ask these vindictive users from persecuting me, I would avail myself of that instead."

"As for who the et al is, I have named them in this request for mediation. I do not object to mediation of this issue between myself and Curps et al. I have also stated that I want no formal action taken against Curps et al, and only wish to have another user politely ask them to cease this personal vendetta."

"What I do know is that I am making every good will effort here to resolve this without having them punished for their behaviour. But if punishment is my only recourse to make them behave, I will seek punishment."

"Raul654, You are in the et all, my dear, come give us a kiss and let's end this feud."

"I can simply ask that somebody please ask Curps et al to cease this vendetta, and I have asked for precisely that. That is all I seek and that is all I intend to get. Raul654, why can't we be friends? Why are you pursuing this agenda against me?"

"I have stated numerous times already, I in fact initiated the reqeust, so what is this? I'd like to get some more attention on this issue, clearly there is already a lot of bias amongst the participants."

"somebody to try and help myself and Curps et al to end this personality-based feud"

"I've already named my advocate in this matter, Sam Spade, who volunteered to help me."

"what I asked for was an impartial observer to make my pleas to these people"

"I seek an impartial observer, merely to ask them politely to stop hounding me. If that's not mediation then that is not what I asked for."

"for a disinterested party to relay my concerns to these abusive users"

This list is far from complete, but it should serve to illustrate quite clearly what I sought, and when compared to Raul654's comments interspersed on the page and in the audit trails, it should effectively demonstrate how Raul654 has tried to insert himself to subvert, then escalate this process. Raul654's accusatory tones and hostile attitude toward me is unwarranted. I requested mediation for Curps abusive and confrontational attitude on this page, after I had made a request for somebody to please act as an impartial messenger for me. Why Raul654 thinks he can now turn my request for assistance (and then mediation) into his request for mediation (step 4 according to Raul654) and quickly on to arbitration (step 5 according to Raul654) and then to a permanent hard ban (step 6 according to Raul654). Are we to allow this sort of paint-by-numbers excision from wikipedia based on personal prejudices of sysops? I don't know, maybe that's what most people want, tyranny of the sysops and arbitrary rule under the guise of due process. Raul654, I suggest if you want mediation with me, you start a subsection on this page describing why you would like mediation, and in particular point out why you chose now to ask for mediation. Thank you so much in advance for your understanding and your infinite patience, Raul654. And by the way, forget what I said in my emails to you, I love your mustache, I can almost imagine it tickling my cheeks. Give us a kiss, beautiful. :X - Plautus satire 19:27, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Now to sum up, what I want is what I asked for, which is somebody to volunteer to act as a messenger between myself and Curps. Since Curps appears intent on turning this thread into a debate about me, instead of a simple request for assistance, I chose to ask for mediation with Curps. If the "et al" insists on entering into mediation with me, perhaps they should formally request so on this page, as I have only asked for mediation with Curps. In regards to the "et al," I would reiterate my request for individual assistance in talking to them, but since this page is for formal requests, I will not (and did not) ask for mediation with "et al". Note: This thread was started to request assistance, then mediation, between Curps and Plautus satire, and was subsequently "hijacked" by Raul654 et al so it could be turned into a forum to attack me further. Can I ask how long this abuse and ruination of wikipedia by Raul654 is going to be tolerated? While I did not and do not ask for mediation between myself and Raul654, I do not object to it if they wish to file a formal request on this page. Hopefully that will keep me from having to answer twenty times in these requests (which I'm sure will materialize with utmost haste). My other concerns about Raul654 will be addressed elsewhere, as I am about to my breaking point. I have tried hostility, that didn't work and only cast myself in a foul light. I have tried cooperation, that didn't work and only allowed for more subtle abuse that defies casual observation. I have tried polite abstraction, that didn't work and only opened me up for verbal abuse. I have tried illiciting outside help in dealing with this persistent threat to me, and that appears also to be failing. I have even tried making peace on an individual basis with these individuals, and nothing seems to work. It would seem the only option I have is to escelate my insistence that something be done about it. - Plautus satire 19:27, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

It's difficult to know for sure since this thread has been turned into yet another anti-Plautus page, but I believe the record now stands at the acceptance of Curps and myself of TufKat as mediator. I think now the process can begin, unless I am mistaken? - Plautus satire 19:59, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Raul654 and Plautus

To quoth Plautus: "While I did not and do not ask for mediation between myself and Raul654, I do not object to it if they wish to file a formal request on this page." -- I hearby request mediation between myself and Plautus. Evercat and SheikYerBooty have also expressed an interest in mediating with Plautus. I am willing to speak for them as well. I am willing to accept any member of the mediation committee. →Raul654 22:44, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

I want private mediation. I will announce candidates in the near future. - Plautus satire 00:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You have already agreed to Tuf-Kat as a mediator between you and Raul654 (07:27, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)). Curps 00:44, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Request clarification from a member of the arbitration committee: can Curps, Shiekyourbooty, and myself have our meditions done together? If so, I speak for the rest of us when I say we want them done together, and will not accept anything else. →Raul654 05:38, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

That is an acceptable demand, but Plautus need not agree to it. Will you accept that, Plautus? Tuf-Kat 18:57, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

I've said all I had to say on this issue but I'll repeat it here just so I don't get steamrolled any more than I already am. I made my intentions perfectly clear with my request for moderation in dealing with Curps and with silsor. Others have tried to inject themselves into both of these processes (particularly Raul654 who has made it clear either I go or he goes). I feel that this process has reached the end of its useful life. TufKat, I have emailed you via wikipedia mail telling you I am willing to begin mediation between Curps and myself, which is what I asked for and all I asked for, regardless of how desperately Raul654 and others have been trying to jump onto this bandwagon. I have not yet received a response from you, TufKat. Are you also going to withdraw your offer to help(Because I am so unpopular? I don't blame you, don't get any of my blood on you there. - Plautus satire 19:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC))? - Plautus satire 19:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

silsor and Plautus satire

I would like to formally request mediation between myself and silsor, for reasons both of his abuse of sysop authority and for his demonstrable double standards. I have outlined briefly the claims of his sysop abuse [[6]].

I reject mediation. silsor 05:19, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

silsor, are you abjectly refusing to discuss this reasonably with me, even using a mediator? I just want to be sure on this matter before I proceed. I do not wish to see you punished for your behaviour, I merely want you to cease. - Plautus satire 05:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't really see how I can make this more clear to you. You would love to stretch this out as long as possible. silsor 05:26, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for making your intentions clear, silsor. I appreciate your honesty in this matter. I will consider that honesty when I decide how further to procede. - Plautus satire 05:29, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This request has not followed proper procedure. It is therefore premature and does not belong here. →Raul654 05:54, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Proper procedure is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. silsor 05:56, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

---

FINAL STATEMENT ON ALL DISPUTES

Raul654, silsor, Churps, all the others out there, and you know who you are (though I don't even know who you all are yet), you have succeeded. I have tried to remain calm and cool and cooperative and for days on end I have been baited, taunted, insulted, slandered, ridiculed and punished for doing nothing more than what I learned by example from watching all of you. Apparently what is good for these geese is not good for this gander. That's fine. Carry on with your paint-by-numbers permanent ban. I'm sick of being polite to all of you thugs and getting walked on in return. I offer no defense other than the entirety of the page histories (not cherry-picked histories or my hallucinated page deletion schemes) but the entire history of my contributions. By now, through interaction with these dumb assholes, the dead weight I have added to wikipedia far outweighs anything I have contributed or will ever be able to contibute without challenge. I'd have to live three thousand years to research entries in order to justify the changes I'd have to make in order to keep from being banned long enough to actually be allowed to insert factual information into entries without perpetual conflict. - Plautus satire 07:48, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is what you seem to have done in the other places you were banned from, as soon as you were backed into a corner on factual grounds. Bye! silsor 07:51, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

My cup runneth over. →Raul654 07:57, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

The idea that Plautus is sick of being polite is greatly amusing, considering how often he's tried it. Isomorphic 08:17, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

silsor, you're a lying mother fuckerperson who is engaged in slander. And I'm not going anywhere. I said I'm not going to contribute any more because assholesunreasonable people like you make it pointless and counter productive. I haven't been backed into any corner, I made a jackass of myself by letting you get me agitated. - Plautus satire 16:07, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, you have three choices:

1. Mediation, where we will insist that you abide by the rules just like everyone else
2. Send this to the arbitration committee
3. You agree to leave Wikipedia all-together and we drop the issue

Promising to confine yourself to the talk pages isn't good enough for me or any of the rest of us. Please explicetely choose one of the above. →Raul654 18:12, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

You misunderstand me completely. I made no promises and still promise no such thing. I have already made it very clear numerous times that I intend to make every effort to learn and abide by wikipedia policy. I do not promise to be your whipping boy. You can not force me to leave wikipedia, Raul654. You may make it virtually impossible for me to make any corrections but you are not going to make me walk away. As I said, proceed with your paint-by-numbers slander of me. I'm not going to engage you any further because I feel it is a collosal waste of time. If you intend to seek to have me banned then by all means do so with utmost haste. Wikipedia is not your private Idaho. - Plautus satire 18:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is twice now you've hijacked my requests for mediation with other users, Raul654. Though I know I have popped off before thinking many times, I always admit when I make a mistake. I will let the entirety of the record speak for itself, as does the record of my posts to the Apollo hoax group, where a perusal of evidence reveals I have unpopular views, but am completely capable of expressing them without malice unless I am deliberately and persistently provoked. - Plautus satire 18:26, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Raul654, you have two choices, either stop attacking me because I insulted your mustache and called you a fat bitch and we can be friends or continue attacking me because I insulted your mustache and called you a fat bitch and let wikipedia suffer for your inability to get over it. - Plautus satire 19:13, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For the last time, for the record, please explicetely choose - mediation (with all of us), arbitration, or quit wikipedia. If this time you do not explictely choose, I will assume you do not want mediation, and will refer this to the arbitration committee. A simple "Yes, I want mediation" will suffice. →Raul654 20:20, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

Raul654, for the last time, take this to your own request for mediation with me. - Plautus satire