Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-01/Arbitration report

Arbitration report

Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

Arbitrator resigns

Yesterday, after Rlevse blanked his user page and put up a "retired" tag, with an edit summary that said "you guys want it you got it", his name was removed from the list of current members of the Arbitration Committee.

Rlevse retired while copyright and plagiarism concerns were being examined at an administrators' noticeboard discussion. On behalf of Rlevse, arbitrator SirFozzie confirmed that Rlevse has scrambled his passwords in addition to turning in his CheckUser, Oversight and ArbCom permissions. It is expected that his vacant position will be filled by one of the successful candidates of this year's ArbCom elections.

"Today's featured article" pulled from main page

The copyright and plagiarism concerns were about DYK articles by other editors, and after 3 days had come to extend to Sunday's featured article, Grace Sherwood (on a historical witch-hunt, in accordance with the Halloween theme), which had been co-authored and nominated for FA by Rlevse. Not long after the article had appeared on the main page, the first concern about possible plagiarism from a USA Today article was voiced by an anonymous editor. After 3 minutes, the concern was dismissed by Rlevse, and another 7 minutes later, the IP was blocked for "block evasion" by a checkuser. However, further investigation found that an edit by Rlevse in September had (according to a summary by Hans Adler)

“

No less than 8 consecutive sentences plagiarised (and in most cases obviously copied) from a passage consisting of 9 consecutive sentences in a single source, in the same order.

Only a minimal amount of added information.

The only source given for this passage is a website where the text did not originate.

”

(The third concern does not seem to apply to subsequent article versions, as Rlevse had corrected the reference 27 minutes later in the following edit. And in one of his last comments, 7 minutes before his retirement, he defended himself against the plagiarism concerns by stating that the "passage is marked with a ref".)

Raul654, the Featured Article Director, was alerted of these concerns at 11:15 (UTC), and at 12:28 (UTC), replaced the article, after it had spent more than twelve hours on the main page.

A concern was also raised that Rlevse was making unseemly responses (examples: [1] [2] [3]).

Rlevse was contacted for this story, but declined to comment.

Other questions and allegations

Several other questions and allegations were raised in relation to plagiarism and copyright violations. It was asked whether Wikipedia should avoid using the present form of the DYK process, and instead, adopt different incentives. Arbitrator Risker alleged that Wikipedia’s FAC process is at fault. Other editors stated that editors were responsible for what they write, and that the process isn’t to blame for the issues. Some users discussed the differences between plagiarism, copyright violations and close paraphrasing. At the time of writing, the discussion continues at the noticeboard.

See also last year's Signpost dispatch on plagiarism.

RfC on ArbCom election voting procedure

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure is a request for comment: what procedure should the Community use this year to elect the 2011 Arbitration Committee? The Signpost reminds its readers that the RfC is likely to close in two days.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

1 November 2010 (all comments)

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Just hoping that people comment on the issue itself at the appropriate place(s), not here. The discussion is already being split between at least three project pages, an ANI subpage, Jimbo's talk page, and an FAR. /ƒETCH COMMS / 23:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the only comment one could possibly make would be as follows. I fully expected to click on this page, find a statement saying that all active cases had been closed & none had been opened, & wonder how many Wikipedians might understand me were I to write that it's been a quiet week not only for the ArbCom but also Lake Wobegon. Instead, we read this. -- llywrch (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was rather unsettling last week when several DYKs had to be pulled for these issues, but when Rlevse retired, I was shocked. For the record, discussions are at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page, Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Changing DYK, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Plagiarism issue, Wikipedia talk:Featured articles#Problem article, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1, and User talk:Jimbo Wales. /ƒETCH COMMS / 12:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, retirement? I get resigning but flat out retiring? ResMar 14:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, this is a perfect example of how not to resolve problems. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 14:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the retirement, even to extent of scrambling the password, and it reflects poorly on neither him nor Wikipedia. Were I to be shown to have done the like, my feeling would be such acute embarrassment that I would probably want to retire just as he did. But even great embarrassment can diminish with time, and a new account started & declared. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is happening far too often. ResMar 20:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. De Administrando Imperio (talk · contribs) was having so much success at getting detailed articles about terrorist incidents in the 'in the news' section of the main page that complaints were raised about too much weight being placed on these incidents. It turned out that the articles were largely copyvios of online news reports after I blocked the editor after noticing a run of copyvios in new articles created by them (as a plug, any assistance with the cleanup at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/De Administrando Imperio would be great). Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this related to what I said? o.O ResMar 22:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you were referring to prominent examples of copyvios - did you mean that ArbCom members resigning is happening too often? Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant that prominent people are leaving and, worse, being hounded and kicked off far too often. ResMar 13:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great embarrassments can be dealt with. I don't like the way people cornered Rlevse. He should have been dealt with more kindly. Instead of retiring, I wish his response would have been, "I made a mistake. Please show me how to fix it." We all walk a tightrope between no original research/source verification and plagiarism/copyright violation. Even experienced editors can make this sort of mistake. We should help them rather than tarring and feathering. Jehochman ^Talk 11:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jehochman. And we should not try to second-guess what he weighed up in his decision—WPians often retire suddenly. It's a syndrome. Perhaps frustration builds, they are treated poorly for quite a while, and they snap. It's all a pity. Tony (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was Rlevse really tarred and feathered? Was he really treated poorly? I didn't see any sign of this, but maybe I missed it. I don't know Rlevse from Adam, but I interacted with him just over a year ago when he nominated Black Hawk War to be a featured article. The poor quality of the sourcing, and his petulant responses to the concerns raised, makes this new incident completely unsurprising to me. Yes, we should be nice to people, and understand that we all make mistakes. But sometimes people cannot handle criticism as a grownup should. Rlevse is presumably a grownup; if he acts otherwise, the responsibility is his. —Kevin Myers 11:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics

I added a parenthetical statement that the IP blocked was a banned editor. This is somehow relevant. I don't know how the Signpost works, but assume that like the rest of Wikipedia we are allowed to make bold edits for the purpose of improvement. Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. Substantive post-publication edits have the potential to cause controversy, and this is no exception. My understanding was that no details were going to be provided on-wiki except that the user was evading a block. If this was a banned editor, who was it? Which on-wiki confirmation are you using that links this IP to that particular banned user's contributions? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could confirm with Rlevse that it's a banned editor. Secret ^account 00:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive edits to SP articles should be avoided after publication. Tony (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another arbitrator told me it was a banned editor. Jehochman ^Talk 11:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is all this is that when somebody is banned, they should not be allowed to influence events on Wikipedia. It was unwise for everybody to run for torches and pitchforks after this banned editor made the accusation. It would have been far better for somebody to have gone over Rlevse's contributions. Selectively cherry picking a few bad edits from among a giant contribution history is not a fair way to review an editor's work. (Unless those few edits are truly egregious.) Rlevse did cite his sources so that it was easy to pick up the problem. This could have been calmly fixed, the editor's other contributions reviewed, and the matter deal with much more civilly than the way things went down. Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<groan> Lots wrong there, Je. Who "ran for torches and pitchforks after this banned editor made the accusations"? I haven't followed his talk, so perhaps I'm missing something-- I know he had a tussle over his "jaw flapping" comment before he retired. The copyvio problem was first mentioned at ANI almost 12 hours into the mainpage: that was the first most of us knew of it, I immediately posted to Rlevse and asked him to deal with it immediately (also indicating I was unpleased about his "jaw flapping" comment), he refused and retired. Please get the chronology straight. Further, at that point, I didn't know the accusations were from a banned editor, and even if I had known, what difference does that make? I investigated as soon as it was raised on ANI, found a glaringly obvious copyvio on the main page-- don't shoot the messenger even if s/he is a banned user, when the message was correct. Third, many people are going through Rlevse's contribs and this is by no means "a few bad edits" in one article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, caution is required in the way such a rumour is transmitted, since privacy and other matters may be at issue that might unpredictably impact on individuals and the project. Either way, it is irrelevant to the important matters that must be dealt with. (1) Has FAC developed better ways to address the accidental or knowing duplication of unattributed wording? Surely good automated means can be found. (2) I find the grave dancing unseemly, unfair, and unproductive. At this stage, we should be focusing on systemic reform, not personal angles. Chief among my concerns is the rapid widening of the definition of plagiarism at the guideline, behind our backs, without proper consensus. We are making a noose for WP in this precarious tightrope between "plagiarism" and OR, and by not recognising the unique conditions of WP, which differ from those that govern the notion of plagiarism for journalism and academic assignments. Tony (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Don't allow yourself to be used as a means of a banned user getting revenge on an arbitrator.

(2) Fix it immediately (paraphrasing in substance) is not a good way to talk to a volunteer. Rlevse owed you exactly nothing. If there's a problem, report it and ask somebody to fix it, or take the article down and replace it with another one. It is obvious that Rlevse was going to feel severe embarrassment about his error, and the situation was dealt with in a way that maximized that feeling, to the point that he apparently couldn't deal with it, and felt the need to leave. That's a bad result, and sets a bad precedent. Jehochman ^Talk 12:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1)To my knowledge, I wasn't used by a banned editor. The issue surfaced at ANI during an examination of DYK, was brought there by another editor, and I had no knowledge of the IP that originally raised the issue. I had to do the right thing once the issue came to my attention, regardless of who brought it.

(2) Fix it immediately was a poor response from me on many levels, not the least of which is that there was no quick fix for this problem (many editors are still trying to fix it), and none of us at that point realized how bad the problem was (I thought it was one paragraph that could be "immediately" fixed). Once I saw the extent of the problem, I did act to have Raul654 remove it (since I'm not an admin, can't remove it anyway, and would never step on Raul's toes to remove a TFA). Certainly, in hindsight, "fix it immediately" added to Rlevse's stress, did not help the situation, and for that I sincerely apologize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, you are a wonderful person. I hope somebody points out this conversation to Rlevse and he decides to return. Wikipedia's main goal is to educate. We can do that by publishing articles, but we can also educate by teaching people to be better writers. This was a teachable moment, a missed opportunity. If somebody as experienced as Rlevse could make this mistake, it means we need to do a better job guiding our editors toward best practices with respect to WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:COPYVIO and WP:PLAGIARISM. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confrontation vs. cooperation, calmness vs. agitation

Glancing briefly at the diffs I wonder why this could not have been characterised, instead of "No less than 8...." as something like

Eight sentences seems to have been sourced from the outside article, including a number that were close paraphrases or direct copies. Clearly this oversight needs to be fixed, good job referencing the source, Rlevse, that made sorting this out much easier.

I realise this was post retirement, and very much only using this as an example, the project has been running for eight years, because it is GFDL and regularly dumped it is not 100% dependent on the Foundation, USA Today are not going to sue over 8 sentences (in fact any mainstream news organisation would be crazy to sue without checking every article they have published in the past 8 years does not plagarise WP) and if they did it would not by the Foundation they would sue. So yes this sort of hiccup can be embarrassing, but we do tend to make mountains out of molehills and run around like Chicken Lickens. Rich Farmbrough, 16:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It could not be phrased that way because that would not have been honest: "including a number" for 8 out of 8? Several instances of close paraphrasing in a row an "oversight" after two other Arbs had their earlier contributions looked at for possible copyvios this year? "Good job"? "Mountains out of molehills"?

The project being ~~GFDL~~ CC-BY-SA 3.0 is part of the problem. Others take our content and rely on having the right to publish it on their own, so long as they attribute it to us / in the way that we do. We are not just publishing someone else's work illegally on our servers, we are encouraging others to do so as well! Nothing against the Pirate Bay, but Wikipedia has a fundamentally different mission. For us the question is not what are the odds that someone will sue us, and if they do, that they will win. Hans Adler 23:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I explained the situation to you by email and proposed that you remove your exceptionally clueless comment. I did not get a response. I do not object to removing this section. Hans Adler 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of The Signpost? Share your feedback.

Home

About