User talk:Aeon1006/AMA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

THIS DISCUSSION IS CLOSED. REQUEST FOR COMMENT TO BE FILED SHORTLY TO HELP RESOLVE THIS ISSUE. Aeon Insane Ward 01:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All discussion on this page will remain civil. Any Personal Attacks, Rude comments or vandalism will be removed and reported. Aeon Insane Ward 00:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


This is for AMA related Discussions.

Exquisite-khelpcenter.png   Discussion Conventions

  • Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion, Thanks.
  • Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
  • Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Wikipedia:Civility

  • NOTE: Comments expressed on this talk page do not reflect the ideas or beliefs of Aeon.
  • NOTE: This page is for AMA related disscussion ONLY. Please keep all comments on topic and civil.


TO ALL[edit]

I have requested that ElKevbo also weigh in on this. This user has been tracking the article and can give me more information to work with. Aeon Insane Ward 05:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


UC Riverside article/ Advocate Request.[edit]

Dear Aeon,

Thank you for considering my case.

For some time I, and others (namely User:UCRGrad), have been editing the University of California Riverside article; we have been contributing information that we feel will make the article both comprehensive and truthful. Particularly, some editors are alumni and wish to add have first hand referenced knowledge of the campus. While many university articles solely attract grandeur information from former students, we feel that an encyclopedic entry should be balanced and objective- even if that means including facts that are perceived to be negative. Over the past few months of editing we have engaged in content discussions with other editors. (see TALK). Some of this debate has been contentious, however we have been able to work though it and come to compromises.

Nevertheless, I am requesting your help in the following:

More recently, there has been a group of editors, led by User:Amerique, that have attempted to aggressively push their POV ideas on this article. Their primary effort has been to remove facts that they see as “negative,” although, in my opinion, it is to simply create a grandeur image of the campus via the wiki article. They have attempted to make changes to the article without fully explaining their reasons in TALK. Despite discussing issues with them in detail, they still persist on pressing their views on us. Even when we explain why we think they find any excuse to edit the article in the fashion they desire.

Alarmingly, they have also grown increasingly hostile. For example Amerique writes to his group of kindred editors, “it seems if the three of us work together at editing the article like those two do [myself and UCRGrad], we can overpower them. I say we turn this drama into an episode of WWF tag team wrestling,” a statement that we feel is an attempt to gang up on other users whom they disagree with and force their view on them. (bracket statement inserted) SEE Hey, WHS subject. Another member part of this Amerique’s group, User: WHS, has become increasing belligerent on the TALK page, and he as recently plagiarized the comments of UCRGrad (see TALK). He has mocked even UCRGrad’s comments and engaged in behavior that is uncivil. And another user, Technosoul02, violated the 3RR in order to silence our edits. These three individuals form the core group that is responsible for their POV pushing. Amerique has even filed a RfA against UCRGrad, which failed unanimously. Four Arbcoms agreed that there was no wrong doing on the accused editor’s part and UCR article was comprehensive and “a pretty decent college article.” Additionally, one Arbcom said that “a quick read of the talk pages and article history shows that a number of editors on all sides have been stubborn, hard to work with and contentious.”

I need your help in resolving the conflicts with these individual and to ultimately save the UC Riverside article from a malignant and nonobjective POV.

I look forward to your response Insert-Belltower 03:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Amerique's statement[edit]

While I understand how that comment could be interperted as advocating belligerence on my part, I meant it to be understood as advocating teamwork. Observing how UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower operate, always in support of the other and never in contadiction, even in their responses to the UCR survey, I think I learned from them and have been advising others on what I think are effective approaches to both editing the article and engaging with those two. WHS was involved with the initial RFARB and so understood the criticisms it recieved that lead to its rejection. I have not advised WHS's recent actions with regard to the article, as his interactions with UCRG/IB have been moving too swiftly for me to entirely follow. After the RFARB was rejected I took almost two weeks off from editing the article, during when user Technosoul02, who was not involved with the RFARB, continued to engage with UCRG/IB and for awhile seemed to be the only one still committed to doing so. So, I started advising him on his talk page with what I learned from the RFARB experience, and eventually got pulled back into engaging with UCRG/IB directly after it seemed that Technosoul would not pursue 3rd party interventions on his own behalf. WHS appeared again after I had gotten involved, but he has been pursuing his own agenda using his own tactics, and while I personally have not advised his approach, I also have not advised against it, as I assumed since he was involved with the RFARB he knew what he was doing.

Regarding accusations that I myself have attempted to push my POV on the article, a review of my contribution history will establish that I have never contested even Insert-Belltower's degrading changes to my edits. My interactions with both UCRG and IB on the article's talk page since the RFARB have been, on my part, diplomatic and entirely focused on finding means of compromise between rather adamantly held points of view. I am committed to working with others, particularly non-invested 3rd parties in official capacities, towards achieving consensual agreements on POV issues concerning that article. If my comments on WHS's talk page seem to advocate beligerence, and thus can be considered as even partly responsible for any actions on his part that may be considered out of line of Wikipedia policy, I will promptly retract them or otherwise not encourage him to continue pursuing these specific actions in question. Otherwise, I think he has generally conducted himself well, considering the circumstances. Regards,--Amerique 15:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

UCR[edit]

Thanks for your help so far.

As far as RFC is concerned, it has already been done and nothing has arisen from it. I don't see any reason for doing it again at this point. Additionally, an RfAr has been filed on to the article and UCRGrad by Amerique, in which four arbitors said there was no wrong doing.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I would rather deal with these issues outside of the formal community based appeals, as of right now (no RFC ,etc). I have great confidence in the ability for individuals to engage in dialoge and work things out.


Best Wishes, Insert-Belltower 14:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

UC Riverside article / Comments[edit]

Aeon, I'm very glad to see that you have taken on the role of Advocate for Insert-Belltower. :-)

As for everyone involved, Aeon, Insert-Belltower, Amerique: I hope that the four of us together can work towards a solution that is mutually beneficial and in line with Wikipedia policy. Amerique should be over here soon to make an expository statement about his opinions concerning the situation, and I assume the conversation will progress from there. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum[edit]

Caruso has advised me (via email) to outline my argument according to specific areas of Wiki policy. (I read this email after writing my earlier statement in response to reading earlier statements on this page.) So, as addendum to the above:

WP: Fairness of tone[edit]

While some of my comments on other's talk pages may be considered somewhat out of line, I think my comments on the article's talk page itself have been consistent with policy. I advise readers of my remarks on other's talk pages to consider that there I have generally been counciling and planning activities and not discussing article content per se. I don't think I have been especially unfair in my characterizations of other users or of the nature of article content conflicts, although I am glad an opinion of mine stated in my request for advocacy has since been rendered inaccurate by actual hard-negociated progress on the article.--Amerique 17:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR[edit]

I personally have never violated the 3RR, and personally have advised user Technosoul02 not to pursue action in violation of this rule. UCRGrad and IB have been reporting violations to appropriate authorities in dealing with these actions. I never advised WHS to pursue this course of action, and have generally stayed away from content conflicts associated with these actions, as the inappropriateness of the tactic overpowers any reasonable considerations over content.--Amerique 17:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:FAITH[edit]

This is a complicated issue for me, as I have stated openly that I do expect direct or third party mediated good faith dialogue to work, yet since I have reengaged with those 2 on the article's talk page I have been persistent in pursuing discourse in good faith, despite their attempts to paint my activity as other than what it is. Granted, I can see that it would be hard for them to assume good faith on my part, since the RFARB gathered much support from their various antagonists throughout the talk page archives and my activities since then have been oriented towards developing new sets of interlocutors. But the scope and direction of my interjections to the UCR talk page have been oriented towards finding grounds for compromise, despite all but the most recent evidence that such a thing is concretely achievable.--Amerique 17:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:ATTACK[edit]

I acknowledge that when UCRG attempted to engage me on my talk page soon after the RFARB failed, I was not in the best of moods. However, the conduct was not repeated on my part, and since then I have been able to engage him more or less diplomatically on the UCR article talk page, although his responses regarding content matters frequently don't have much to do with the question at hand, and are typically ways for him or belltower to blanketly assert "I've addressed the issue. It's settled. You (Technosoul, WHS, etc) have not/have failed to address our concerns using logic, are pursing emotional POV, etc," So, there's generally not a sense that dialogue is working, or only works after tremendously tortured and 3rd party mediated effort. In pursuing 3rd party interventions now I have not discontinued efforts at direct dialogue requiring good faith, and hope that further efforts on our part can resolve these outstanding matters.--Amerique 17:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Steps I've taken under WP: DR[edit]

The first step I took was the RFARB, which was premature I admit. While this process was undertaken I avoided the UCR article itself and further discontinued contact with the article for awhile after the RFARB was rejected.

Following that, I attempted to interest others in an article RfC, but a search of the relevant page location revealed that an article RfC has been in effect since some time before I even got involved. If I had known that I would have used it to support the RFARB, but oh well.

Once I determined that an article RfC was already in effect I requested advocacy, and designed and implemented a survey. I hope the survey can become a basis for negociating consensual NPOV agreements for areas currently in dispute. that is all i have.--Amerique 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Insert-Belltower’s Response #1[edit]

Re: WP: Fairness of tone , WP:ATTACK

Briefly.

I disagree with the following statement by Amerique.

From Amerique’s above response: “While some of my comments on other's talk pages may be considered somewhat out of line, I think my comments on the article's talk page itself have been consistent with policy.”

From just yesterday:

Quote From Amerique on the UC Riverside TALK: Also, regarding accusations of plagarism, there is a word "parody," I think you should look up in a dictionary.--Amerique 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC) link

The context of this quotation from Amerique involved the plagiarism of UCRGrad’s comments by [USER:WHS]. While WHS does not agree with the plagiarism judgment, we can all agree that this “parody” as some will call it is intended to mock UCRGrad and his statements. Amerique’s comment was not only inflammatory, in that he failed to knowledge the obvious plagiarism, but it also abetting the incivility bought forth by WHS. I make no hyperbole here. This inappropriate comment was like throwing gasoline on some sizzling coals. Thus, Amerique’s inappropriate rhetoric is not only restricted to the user TALK pages.

Along with the other things I have already mentioned these actions and rhetoric constitute my reasons for requesting an advocate. It is all consistent with the idea that Amerique is leading a concerted attack against myself, UCRGrad and others that disagree with his camp. I understand that Amerique cannot control the actions of other users and I am glad the he has retracted his statement related in the WWF wrestling on the TALK pages. I can accept that. Additionally, I agree Amerique is not responsible for Teknosoul02 violating the 3RR. However, as of now, there is still hostility on UCR TALK against myself, UCRGrad and others. The most recent aggressor has been WHS. Importantly: Amerique is not the only user that I take issue with here. As I have mentioned in my initial statement, users WHS and Teknosoul02 are also involved in this hostile action. I ask that they be allowed to make statements here, if they wish. In addition, since UCRGrad and his actions are being discussed here I would like to ask the he be authorized to post comments here. Insert-Belltower 23:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to Insert-Belltower's request for UCRGrad to post here. I have no opinion as to whether or not Teknosoul02 or WHS should post here, but think that unless all these named users also have individual advocates, the discussion could quickly get out of hand. So, as long as everyone involved with the POV disputes has been offered the representation of an advocate I have no objection to them posting on this page. I will await further statements and appropriate counsel before responding to IB's assertions in full.--Amerique 01:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Excelent, I don't mind any who are involved to voice there opinons and issues on this matter. Now as for the comment made by Amerique on the UCR talk page, I would say has a third party that is was mildly out of line and could have been phrased better. How ever I don't think it is a major breach of policy or possibly ment to be inflamatory. I would recommend that Amerique retract that statement, to help bring about a resolution, and to be careful when making statements such as this which could be taken as an uncivil comment. Aeon Insane Ward 04:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I've apologised for the statement, but have not retracted it, as it seems to have lead to some contentious exchanges that I did not at all anticipate or intend to occur. These exchanges seem to be mostly over now, and I would like the statement kept as a matter or record. Likewise, for the time being, my remarks on WHS's talk page. However, I do take back my earlier objection to others posting here without advocacy, as I think Caruso and Aeon1006 may be enough to handle the situation between all of us.--Amerique 21:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thankyou Amerique that should keep that issue at rest. Aeon Insane Ward 23:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement from WHS[edit]

I'm not entirely certain how appropriate it is for me to post here, so if Aeon wishes me to remove this from the desk I'll do it without hesitation. Regarding the issue at hand, after the failed RFAr, I took approximately a week off from the page in order to try to let cooler heads prevail. Admittedly upon returning to the article, I had become more contentious than I've ever been at any point in my editing history here at Wikipedia. I began using some of the tactics UCRGrad employed in argument with me against him, and I'm fairly certain that both I-B and UCRGrad would agree when I say that my actions peaked when I took UCRGrad's argument, changed around a few words here and there to make them appear less negatively biased, and posted it right under UCRgrad's statement in the talk page. These actions of mine were what caused the accusations of plagiarism. Although I still don't believe what I did was plagiarism, I do acknowledge that it was not only done in bad faith, but was also highly uncivil. Following my course of action, UCRGrad demanded an apology from me and I-B concurred with UCRGrad's assessment of my supposed plagiarism. Realizing that I had been engaging in highly uncivil behavior, I issued UCRGrad the apology that he asked for and suggested that informal mediation may be best as both of us were obviously not on the same wavelength. My apology and suggestion for mediation were in turn, both rejected, and I-B recommended I leave the article once again. In any case, that's just my side of the accusations against me, take them for what you will.

Thank you for the giving me the opportunity to respond. I want to emphasize that I truly care a great deal about this article, and I definitely take to heart what people write in the TALK pages. It is very important to me that I provide well thought-out responses to people, and sometimes it takes me quite some time to choose the right words. Thus, one can only imagine how offended and insulted I was when WHS took my carefully-worded arguments, modified them only-slightly, and used them as his own!!! I had spent so much time preparing the proper wording - arguments that directly addressed his points and satisfied his objections from an analytical standpoint. Instead of responding appropriately, WHS simply copied my work, in many cases WORD FOR WORD, and use most if it as his own argument!!! I realized immediately that he had plagiarized my words and my ideas, entities that had required much thought and consideration on my part. Despite confronting WHS with side-by-side comparisons of how HIS arguments were worded with remarkable similarity to mine, WHS still refused to admit what he done. He even played it off as "parody," which may be partially true, but it still doesn't change the fact that he used MY wording and MY ideas as HIS OWN counter-argument - and this also makes it plagiarism. At the very least, this was extremely uncivil, but I was also frustrated by the fact that WHS would not admit to what he had done, despite being shown side-by-side comparisons of his arguments and mine, demonstrating unquestionable copying. He never really addressed my explanations directly, and never apologized for or admitted to plagiarism. This is just one example of the things that people have done to me on the TALK pages. It's just one example of how people have refused to engage in rational discussion, and turned around and called ME unreasonable or difficult to work with...or as WHS puts it above, "not on the same wavelength." I hope someone can help with this matter. UCRGrad 04:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Amerique however, I feel that he (or she, I'm still not entirely certain), has easily been one of the better editors in this matter, and certainly one of the more civil ones (much more than myself). Amerique has essentially spearheaded the compromisation process, and though a RFAr was probably filed a bit too hastily, many other editors agreed that it was more than necessary. He or she was not responsible for the actions I took on the talk page in anyway, so it would be unfair to him or her to use what've I've done as evidence that Amerique has assembled a team of editors to promote one POV. As I've already noted, he/she has been much more civil in regards to the article than I have.

Also, while I expect disagreement on their part, UCRGrad and I-B have also engaged in uncivil behavior, though it has gone unadmitted on their part. They have both previously been confirmed as abusive sockpuppeteers (though neither of them currently engage in that behavior), and most recently, I-B went to Amerique's talk page gloating of the failed RFAr, and UCRGrad called edits made to the article by Dyslexic agnostic, another AMA, vandalism because he didn't agree with it, despite being done in good faith. I would also argue that I-B employed a rather condescending tone of voice when asking me to leave the article, saying I had no intentions of stopping my actions after I had issued my apology, as well as telling me the status of my health, suggesting I get a soda, and asking me for my opinions on Myrtle Beach.

This all, of course, is from my perspective of the current proceedings. Again, if my posting this is inappropriate, I will promptly remove this from the desk. Thank you.

Per Amerique's reply to I-B (There was an edit conflict as I attempted to post the above), if it is requested I will seek an advocate.--WHS 01:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement from UCRGrad[edit]

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide a statement on this page. As I'm sure everybody knows, there are two sides to every story. To begin with, I am a UCR alumn. I-B is as well. I have spent over 4 years at UC Riverside, and I am extremely well-versed with nearly all significant aspects of the campus. Higher education is also a particular interest of mine, and I believe that I have an appropriate background in aspects related to academics, college admissions, student life, etc. Naturally, I felt that I was in a unique position to write about my alma mater on Wikipedia.

When I first started editing in March 2006, the article was in a bare-bones state. It was missing quite a few sections, it contained virtually no references, and there were very few statistics. I have worked very hard on this article, and so has Insert-Belltower. If you quickly compare the article from March 2006 to its current state, there is no doubt that you will see the hard work we have put into it.

The major problem I-B and I have been having has been with certain rogue-editors who have "insisted" that the article was "biased." To many of them, they "felt" as though there should be NO negative information at all written about the university. Many of these individuals were UCR students themselves. One, in particular, argued that negative information (while factual and relevant) would make UCR students "feel bad about themselves," and therefore it didn't belong. Nearly all of these editors carried the personal opinion that there was substantial bias in the article, and for at least a month, the "NPOV" tag was placed at the top of the article. I-B and I allowed it to remain, as many individuals attempted to rationally discuss whether this were true. I honestly and truly was hoping that somebody could explain how on earth there was bias on this article -- alas, several people tried, but nobody offered a reasonable explanation. In all cases, the arguments offered were either false, irrelevant, or easily addressed.

Most recently, there have been complaints from Amerique, Teknosoul, WHS, and szyslak. What is particularly frustrating is that NONE of these editors are UCR graduates, UCR students, or seem to have any affiliation with the university. I think a major concern is that in order to identify "bias" in a written article, one must have sufficient familiarity with the subject to spot when information is "skewed" in one particular direction. Since none of these individuals appear to have such familiarity, they are likely making personal judgements based on their own knowledge of universities in general or other (dissimilar) UC schools. This is problematic, because for a person unfamiliar with UC Riverside, a lot of these statistics and considerations about its reputation or surrounding environment may seem disturbing. In reality, everything in this article is appropriately written and representative of reality. I can confirm this. I'm sure I-B could too. So, is it fair that opposing editors, with no real knowledge of UC Riverside, and without sufficient familiarity to guage whether information is misrepresented to the point of bias, to "claim" the article is biased? Well, perhaps. If a convincing argument were proposed - that would be satisfactory.

Unfortunately, I have yet to see one. People's explanations of why they "feel" the article is biased have not really survived simple scrutiny. I have always made a strenuous effort to carefully address the points that people make. Others have not done the same in return. Amerique's characterizations of the dialogue I have with opposing editors is not correct. I encourage any neutral third party to examine some of the discussion I've had to see for yourself. Even in Amerique's case, perhaps the most reasonable editor, she will quickly cease to provide counterarguments to mine. More recently, Amerique has just resorted to actions that she believed would silence my work (rather than attempt to maintain an open dialgue with me). She has conspired with other users here to vote a certain way in a straw poll, and encouraged people to write testimonies against me in various places. (I-B has provided specific examples of these). A quick look at Amerique's edits on people's talk pages can confirm this.

Amerique's work ultimately culiminated in a Request for Arbitration against me, which resulted in FOUR Wikipedia arbitrators (administrators) reviewing the article and my contributions. ALL FOUR of them REJECTED Amerique's RFA, and sided against her. In their official opinion, the arbitrators wrote that the UC Riverside article has become "a pretty decent college article, devoid of a lot of the fluff such articles tend to attract." In commenting on accusations that I was difficult to work with, the admins wrote "a quick read of the talk pages and article history shows that a number of editors on all sides have been stubborn, hard to work with, and contentious." Specifically referring to me, they wrote "I don't see that this is completely a 'on impossible editor' situation." In rejecting Amerique's claims, another arbitrator confirmed that indeed, my contributions "presented a significant point of view." Another arbitrator wrote on El Kevbo's talk page, "Also from my own reading of the talk page and look through the page history, this actually seems to be a fairly civil debate, if a lengthy and sometimes a bit heated one" (though this was before the recent contributions by WHS). Please note that if FOUR administrators read the article and its associated talk pages, and did not make a SINGLE mention of bias, but DID compliment the article's quality and my contribution, it goes without saying that much of Amerique's current accusations are untrue. I also want to emphasize that decisions made by a panel of arbitrators/administrators of Wikipedia are binding and authoritative. Findings or opinions rendered by other groups, users, entities, and other non-admins do not supercede those of the arbitrators. Therefore, I want to emphasize that premises, arguments, ideas, and suggestions made here or elsewhere should be consistent with what these four administrators have already determined.

Thank you for taking the time to read my side of the story. UCRGrad 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement from ElKevbo[edit]

I'm not entirely sure the exact aim or purpose of this process so I will attempt to limit my comments to Amerique and Insert-Belltower, the two users who have actively requested advocates.

My interactions with both users has been, with a few minor exceptions, confined to the University of California, Riverside (UCR) article. I first took interest in the UCR article on May 5. After many edits and much participation on the Talk page, I ceased editing the article on May 22 (with recent edits as of yesterday to participate in Amerique's survey and reign in premature removal of a merge suggestion). I had grown completely frustrated with what I perceive to be a subtle and increasingly negative bias on the article perpetuated almost exclusively by two editors: UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower. Both of these editors are single purpose accounts who almost exclusively edit the UCR article, related Talk page, and, more recently, mediation and dispute resolution pages related to that article. In addition to Insert-Belltower's known sockpuppets, there is also evidence that these two users may be meatpuppets. In any case, their very close cooperation on this one article only has always made me suspicious and left a bad taste in my mouth as it seems to be not in the spirit of collegiality in which we try to work in Wikipedia. It has been my experience that Insert-Belltower has been resistant to dispute resolution (I also note with some interest that he only requested an advocate after Amerique but I may be reading too much into that as it doesnt't too unreasonable when considered alone - but it seems to fit a pattern of resistance to dispute resolution until forced). I have not had direct confrontations with Insert-Belltower although I have had many differences in opinion. Our interactions have been tense and, in my opinion, unproductive, but I have not found him to be uncivil or in violation of policies other than WP:NPOV and WP:OWN, violations which are by necessity subjective. I have found Insert-Belltower to be very frustrating to work with and unwilling to compromise or reach consensus; I am sure that he holds the same opinion of me. :)

My interactions with Amerique, on the other hand, have been collegial and productive. I understand his frustrations in trying (largely unsuccessfully) to improve the UCR article and we share many of the same viewpoints. I also understand that this frustration may at times have led him to be less civil than we strive to be and while I do not condone uncivility I am unwilling to "cast the first stone" when I, too, am likely guilty of committing the same sin under similiar circumstances. I admire his tenacity in pursuing the dispute resolution processes and support his efforts to bring more attention to the UCR article and rectify the POV issues we both perceive in the article.

In conclusion, editing the UCR article and attempting to reach consensus and compromise on its Talk page has been, by far, the most frustrating experience I have had on Wikipedia. I have and continue to edit several highly contentious articles, including many higher education articles, and this article has presented more problems and frustrations than all of those other articles. I truly appreciate those of you taking the time to participate in this process and hope the most fair and equitable conclusions are reached. I will follow these proceedings with interest and I will be happy to further contribute or help in any way. --ElKevbo 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Re: ElKevbo[edit]

I would like to thank the advocates for their help in facilitating this discussion. I however think that it was inappropriate to bring ElKevbo in for his opinion on this matter for the following reasons: 1.) Although he has edited and followed the UC Riverside article, he as consistently sided with editors that disagree with UCRGrad and myself. Thus, his opinion does not represent one of a neutral editor in this respect. This is not a personal attack on him. 2.) In my initial statement I mentioned several editors that I am in contention with, ElKevbo is not one of them. I do not have an "beef" with him or his actions, although he and I disagree on some points. Bringing ElKevbo in the picture is like bringing a non-player to the field. Indeed, and importantly, if ElKevbo has a contention with a user here or anywhere he knows that he can pursue a formal process.

I respect him as an individual and he should not take any of these comments personally.

Therefore, I think that because he is not directly involved in this dispute he should not be allowed to comment here.

I hereby request both advocates to strike ElKevbo's comments from this discussion.

I do understand that it is helpful for the advocates to hear an additional opinion from a user that has observed the article, but have not engaged in debate with anyone on it. There are several individuals that fit the profile.Respectfully. Insert-Belltower 23:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand and to some degree share your concerns. However, I am contributing at the specific request of Aeon1006 who has assured me that he or she will let me know if I overstep my bounds.
I also wonder aloud why you object to my contributions to this conversation but not to UCRGrad's as I view his participation in a similar light as I view my own - possibly helpful to the process but not core participants.
Finally, I don't know how one would know about someone who has read and followed the article in question but not contributed to it. I don't see a way for that to be technically possible or feasible. --ElKevbo 00:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo. I'm not blaming or indicting you for contributing here. I think that it was inappropriate Aeon to invite you. I'm not finding you at fault. As for UCRGrad, his actions and statements are being directly discussed here so I think it is fair that he have a say. I have asked for this in my Response (top of page). Similarly, since Amerique, WHS and Teknosoul02's actions are being discussed here, it is fair that they make comments. I don't have a problem with your actions and thus I didn't mention you in my initial statement for advocacy request.

There are some users that edit the article for minor changes. Two come to mind off the top of my head: SoCalAlum and WPW (I think that's who it is). These individuals have had minor contributions on the TALK page but have edited the article for grammer and spelling, etc. There are probably a few more, but I can't think right now.Insert-Belltower 00:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that ElKevbo is not a specific party to this advocacy action. I will stipulate, however, that he is an interested party to the ARTICLE. As such, it doesn't seem appropriate for ElKevbo to be volunteering or freely contributing to this advocacy action, of which he is not specifically a part of. It should be okay if somebody specifically asks him his opinion or experience on a particular topic, but anything beyond directed questioning is really not appropriate. That's my take on it. UCRGrad 01:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Awaiting ElKevbo reply[edit]

To all. Once we have ElKevbo reply on this, we will deal with each issue one at a time and try to work each out. Thanks to all for making there opening statements I think I have a decent messure on what has been happening. Aeon Insane Ward 06:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Verymuch agreed and I commend everyone for keeping things civil. :-) I also encourage all parties involved, now that opening statements are almost finished, to do their best in getting to know one another as people. Take initiative and chat with eachother via email or on your talk pages, see what common interests you share and the like. We're all in this same boat together, and we're all capable of working with one another to make this article a great one, as well as strengthen our contributions as a whole, and if we deal with these disputes one at a time as a team, striving to understand where we're each coming from, it's not just possible: It'll happen. :-) If you don't feel comfortable doing that, I understand; however, it will enrich your experience here and help you along. A compromise is something that we should strive for, and one that we can all accept willingly. So with that said, let's wait for ElKevbo, take a deep breath and then work towards a resolution. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Issue # 1 WP:Fairness of Tone[edit]

WP:Civil WP:EQ WP:NPA

Above policies play into this one. All involved should review them as each is about to be disscussed in relation to this issue.

I think we should start with this issue first since both Insert-Belltower and Amerique have commented on it.

Amerique you stated that basicly that your comments on the UCR talk page were with in policy. Insert Belltower you disagree with this statement. Now Amerique has apologized for the following statement, "Also, regarding accusations of plagarism, there is a word "parody," I think you should look up in a dictionary.--Amerique 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)"

Now that comment has been addressed civilly. Are there any other comments made by either side that could have been taken or ment to be taken as unfair or uncival in accordance with Wiki Policy? Aeon Insane Ward 00:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding civility, I've already acknowledged that in working on the article, I've been highly uncivil as of late. In the talk page, I've previously issued an apology for my actions. As noted in my statement as well as his response to my statement, it has gone unrecognized by UCRGrad. Still, I'll issue it again in the hopes that he will accept it this time. --WHS 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

WHS has issued an apology ONLY for his admittedly uncivil behavior. He has not apologized for his plagiarism. UCRGrad 21:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I-B and UCgrad, please respond to this. Aeon Insane Ward 01:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to take this time to also note that WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone deals primarily with fairness of tone within articles (which was a major contention amongst the editors involved, i.e. what exactly was biased or fair). Perhaps it might be useful to also go over nuances of what each party sees as "fair tone" within the article in either this section, or as a later issue, seperately? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 02:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahh so that was where that policy was. My mistake. Thanks Steve, I had forgotten that it was under NPOV. Aeon Insane Ward 02:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like there are two issues here. One is "fair tone," which deals with article neutrality, and the other is civility, which deals with behavior in the TALK pages. With regard to "fair tone," I am confident that the article is completely consistent with this principle. I would be happy to address any issues with this. With regard to civility, I think my biggest concern is with plagiarism by WHS. While this user does admit to uncivil behavior (and rightfully so), it really doesn't excuse his actions. Furthermore, he still refuses to acknowledge that he copied my words, copied my ideas, and incorporated them into his counterargument on TALK. I am still mortified by the concept and the idea. Plagiarism, in any form, is one of the most abominable transgressions in academia - its severity transcends any of the complaints listed her or elsewhere in the article. That's my biggest concern right now in the civility department. UCRGrad 03:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am most concerned with civility. My biggest problem here is Amerique's coaching and malevalent advisement of other users to undermine UCRGrad and myself. Although Amerique has retracted many of his statements, which I appreciate, but quite simply the damage has been done. For example, the survey/poll right now on the UC Riverside TALK page is now laced with the editors in Amerique's wrestling analogy who might be stacking the deck against other users who disagree with them. Why was the survey/poll done at this time? These are the questions I ask myself. Indeed, UCRGrad and myself do not engage in direct dialogue and "tag team" with each other in order to subvert other users.Insert-Belltower 03:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear, to me at least, that the survey/poll was initiated by Amerique as the failed RfArb specifically cited that there needs to be "more prior dispute resolution." I don't see any hostile or malicious intent in either the way the survey/poll was constructed or advertised. I do not like the way the questions were worded but as someone with professional research and survey experience I am very sensitive to and critical of such issues so my issues may not be particularly relevant or helpful in the informal, non-binding context in which the survey/poll is being offered. --ElKevbo 16:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

On those issues. First to Insert Belltower, Amerique has retracted many of his statements, but has no control over other users who got involved and the current issue is between you two. UCGRAD and WHS This was on a talk page if I'm not mistaken correct? We will deal with this issue next if that is all right since they are two diffrent issues.

Ok The aritcle it self seems to me to be within NPOV and is a nice bit of work done by ALL editors involved. Now the Civility on the talk page Amerique it seems to me your are attempting to make amends for what has happened and Insert-belltower you seem to accept that correct?

Now Amerique Here is a question for you have you advised, helped or coached any members involved in the UCR article in regaurds to your own POV?

The extent to which I have done any of this was to advise technosoul02 to pursue third-party mediation efforts once discourse between him and UCRGrad seemed to be going nowhere. a review of technosoul's user page may provide the most concrete examples of any POV pushing on my part, if this at all qualifies.
With regards to my communications with and assistance to other users engaged with UCRGrad or Insert-Belltower, they can read that however they want. I have not enjoined others to that article for the purpose of engaging with them directly, but for the purpose of filling out the survey. I've only started advising other users on their talk pages after they've already proven themselves to be committed to improving that article by directly engaging with UCRG/IB on their own initiative. I have not advised editors to that article whose favored tactics, mainly 3RR violations, I thought made them unable to be worked with effectively. In any case, my activities on Wikipedia are completely out in the open, unlike UCRG/IB's, who seem to be using off-Wikipedia means of communicating with each other.
With regards to the survey, I have not coached or in any way manipulated anyone's responses to it. If you notice, on the survey I myself am in agreement with ucrg/ib on some issues, in disagreement with others they paranoidly catagorize as "in my camp," or whatever. My encouraging more third parties to fill out the survey is not an attempt to "stack the deck" in any way, as I am interested in what non-invested parties have to say about the article. If IB or UCRG thought the survey was in any way biased in itself, they could have contested it by not filling it out, or discouraged others from doing so. UCRGrad was the first respondent to the survey beside myself, posting his responses it soon after i put it up. Belltower, i think, even improved on it by adding a section for evaluating history. While UCGR has since offered his criticisms, to my mind the current results of the survey provide an adequate outline of where the various zones of consensus and contention lie in that article, which is all it was intended to do.
With regards to ammends, i would like to point out that the gentleman's apology I offered is more than they have ever offered me, or as WHS has pointed out, any others they may have acted uncivilly towards, regardless of intent. Best Regards,--Amerique 17:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Amerique, I have looked into that issue and foudn that so far everything supports your comment. Aeon Insane Ward 17:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And here is a question to Insert Belltower, have you at anytime used your three sockpuppet accounts (which can be thought of in teh same way as tag teaming) to edit, revert or other wise discuss the UCR Article? Aeon Insane Ward 04:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Aeon, I'm very glad you agree that the article is within the neutral point of view standards of Wikipedia. However, I'm not quite sure what relevance there is that sockpuppet accounts were used by I-B or myself 3 months ago and not since that time, whereas a brief perusal of Amerique's CURRENT talk page and those of other involved editors has shown a pattern of conspiracy to vote and push for sanctions against I-B and/or myself. Furthermore, as I-B's advocate, how come you are arguing against him? UCRGrad 05:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of Amerique's activities as "a pattern of conspiracy." If there is a conspiracy, I am certainly not in it. If I were, I certainly wouldn't discuss it in an open medium such as Wikipedia Talk and article pages with their extensive and public history logs. :) Further, I think the fact that several editors have independently reached similar conclusions regarding the tone and content of the UCR article and the actions of two of its editors is perfectly reasonable and understandable. It is certainly not proof of any conspiracy or other unethical behavior. I don't know where and how Amerique and other editors have come to their conclusions but mine are based off my experience editing multiple articles over the course of more than a year. I can not speak for the other editors involved, but unlike UCRGrad and Insert-Belltower, I have never met any of the other editors involved in this discussion or collaborated with them outside of Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 16:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arugeing against him UCgrad I need all information that could inpact a resolution on this. The Sockpuppet issue was brought up earlier and can be dealt with easily here along with IB's issue with Amerique. I'm remaining neutral in this other than advising I-B as to what action would be best. by remaining Neutral I can be objective in my choices, recomendations and arguements. Thank you for bring up you concern on that issue. Aeon Insane Ward 15:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be noncontributory to comment on the sockpuppet issue because it does not pertain to this current case. Additionally, since I contest the SOCK, but accept, judgement it would be inappropriate to discuss it. Insert-Belltower 20:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I-B, I brought up the past confirmation of sockpuppeteering on your and UCRGrad's part since I was working under the assumption that the boundaries of this case includes past violations of civility on all sides. If we're trying to be objective in the outcome of this, I thought it would be unfair to discuss the past hasty RFAr that Amerique, myself, and others participated in, but exclude past violations of civility by you and UCRGrad. I've mentioned both here and on my talk page that I don't believe you participate in the behavior any longer, but I still feel it is relevant to the case. --WHS 00:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that past issues with this article will effect the out come of this case. And therefore need to be addressed before a solution can be reached. Please answer my question IB. Aeon Insane Ward
I think that past behavior by I-B is relevant IF AND ONLY IF it affects CURRENT individuals involved in this matter. If nobody here currently was affected by behavior from FOUR MONTHS ago, it is a completely moot point. I mean, are you going to pull up his disciplinary records from pre-school to see if he shared his toys? If you really think that discussing "past issues" that do not affect any current members of this action will "effect the out come of this case," then please explain how this could be. Otherwise, I move that we only discuss behaviors affecting current individuals here. In fact, I-B has made some outstanding contributions to this article, and I think he should be commended. UCRGrad 01:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Amerique has been editing the article since February, so I'd say it's relevant. --WHS 01:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Amerique began actively editing the UCR article and participating in the TALK discussion on May 9, 2006. Amerique made only a SINGLE edit to the article and NO contribution to TALK in February. Furthermore, no contributions were made at all by Amerique for the month of March and April. I-B's alleged sockpuppet behaviorisms ended in April. Therefore, there was no significant overlap. Sorry. UCRGrad 01:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with UCRGrad's comments and the Sock allegations should only be involved if they are relevant now. I don't understand how these past issues affect this case.Insert-Belltower 01:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

IB that is the second time you have evaded my question. Please answer it. It is relvent to this case. Aeon Insane Ward 02:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

First off. I accept the apology of Amerique. Regarding the SOCK question: I did not use sockpuppets to engage in the activity that you mentioned for the present UC Riverside article. Insert-Belltower 15:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I-B, I'd argue differently. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. There are more, but I think the point has been made. --WHS 16:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's agree to disagree.Insert-Belltower 16:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WHS has brought some interesting evidence to the table IB, Amerique has apologized for his past violations IB I think it would help to do the same. Then if you are all willing to put this matter at rest then we can move on and maybe discuss a workable solution. Aeon Insane Ward 16:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Stand by my previous comment that I deny all wrongdoing. For me to apologize, I would admit to doing something wrong and I know I am not in the wrong.Insert-Belltower 19:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

But IB you did do wrong doing, the sock accounts were blocked. According to the contribs and the blocking admin you used these accounts to push your own POV. Sorry but that is how it goes. SO you do need to do at least for disupe resoution is to roger up for it man. Sorry man, the check user confrimed the sockpuppets. Aeon Insane Ward 20:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WHS's Plagiarism of UCRGrad's words and ideas[edit]

This is for the plagiarism discussion. UCGrad please post the comment you claim that was copied. WHS please post the comment that you made that was called plagiarism. We will try to figure out how it was ment and what can be done to make amends. Aeon Insane Ward 04:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


I'll just copy over the section from the TALK page:

It has come to my attention that WHS has attempted to pass on MY ideas and arguments as his own. In some cases, he attempts to use quotation marks, but in most cases, there is just blatant "lifting" of strings of words that I've written - and they are passed off as HIS own ideas, integrated into his arguments. Instead of taking the time to construct thoughtful counterarguments, WHS instead borrowed the words and phrases that *I* had constructed and only modified them slightly. Plagiarism is an egregious misconduct in any scholarly work, and it is especially abominable here on Wikipedia.

I have provided the following examples of WHS taking MY ideas and MY work, changing a few words around, and publishing them on WP discussions as HIS ideas and HIS original work. There are more - these are just samples.

Me: "There has been a lot of complaining about a sentence that reads..."

WHS: "There has been a lot of complaining about the desired removal of the quote that reads..."


Me: It would be unfair to select other quotes from the site that make the school sound worse than the above evidence suggests

WHS: It would be unfair to select other quotes from the site that make the school sound worse than the above evidence suggests [word-for-word plagiarism]


Me: "So far, I have not read a SINGLE good reason why it does not belong"

WHS: So far, I have not read a SINGLY good reason why it belongs"

Note: The fact that the word "SINGLE" was changed to "SINGLY" indicates that WHS did not just cut and paste, he actually knowingly re-typed and plagiarized my work, passing it off as his own argument (when the original thoughts and ideas were MINE).


Me: There is absolutely no logical and rational reason for why the quote does not belong...It's contributions like that that really add to the quality of the text.

WHS: There is absolutely no logical and rational reason for why the quote belongs. It's contributions like that that really detract from the quality of the text.

The list continues. It is patently obvious that WHS has taken original IDEAS and TEXT that did not belong to him, made minor changes (if any), and passed them off as HIS OWN original arguments on the WP discussion pages. Plagiarism is absolutely unacceptable, as Wikipedia is a scholarly work. It should not be tolerated from ANY party at all. While WHS may claim this was "parody," it also simultaneously met criteria for plagiarism. Parody does not permit or excuse plagiarism. In a debate over the inclusion or exclusion of information in a well-respected internet encyclopedia, we rely on reasoned arguments and counter-arguments to make important decisions. It is just unconscienable for someone like WHS to steal someone's ideas and words and use them as his counterargument, regardless of his personal belief that he is being witty. UCRGrad 06:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Being someone actively engaged in the field of Library Science, I've become very familliar with plagarism and its extent within academic and nonacademic works so I feel that I may be able to make some useful comments. With what would be upheld in court or in an academic setting, re-wording one's arguments to the negative and reposting them as direct counter arguments are very common and are not considered plagarism. In the negative they do not support your ideas or steal any of your research, nor is WHS seeking to publish his comments seperately or distinctly from your own without attribution. Just like someone asks you "Why?" and you respond "Why not?" that is not plagarism, no? In a dialogue, you cannot plagarize your companion's work, as in a dialogue you are both working together with eachother's ideas and proposals. However, if I were to quote a third party verbatim without referencing them as an argument or counter-argument, that would be plagarism. :-) Does everyone understand the difference that I am attempting to outline? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 13:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to analyze the situation. If I understand correctly, it is your "opinion," as a library science expert, that re-wording one's arguments to the negative and posting them as "direct" counterarguments are common and not considered plagiarism. Unfortunately, I have NEVER heard of this as an "exception" to the rules of what constitutes plagiarism. Can I ask for a reference, please? While it might "make sense" that it is an exception, I do not believe that it is. In fact, as far as I know, plagiarism exists even when you take another person's phrasing and you change one or two words around. The fact that you made such a minor change does NOT constitute a new and original idea or phrasing - instead, it is borrowed and must be attributed properly. Secondly, answering "why not?" to the question "why?" is a non-parallel example. As I'm sure you're aware, plagiarism requires the theft or borrowing of unique phrases that originate or "belong" to an individual. The question "why?" is non-unique, nor can one take credit or possession of it. Therefore, you cannot plagiarize somebody who writes "why?" Finally, WHS's writing did not occur in an exclusive conversation between me and him -- it was published on a widely-read discussion page of a well-respected encyclopedia, available for everyone to read. Thus, this argument does not pan out either. I do not accept these so-called exceptions that you think occurred, but I will concede these points if you provide a reliable source. Thanks. UCRGrad 01:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Steves take on this situation. My views are that it was a example of how words can be used to mean various things and not plagarism. Sorry UCGrad but I don't see how this can be counted as plagarism. Also it is best to keep in mind that on Wikipedia Ideas and text once posted really don't belong to anybody anymore. It is the nature of this wiki. Aeon Insane Ward 15:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly :-) As seen at the bottom of every edit box:

"Edits should not violate copyright and all encyclopedic content must be based on verifiable sources. You agree to license all submissions under the GFDL."

And under the GFDL (full text here):

"The GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL or simply GFDL) is a copyleft license for free content, designed by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU project. It is the counterpart to the GNU GPL that gives readers the same rights to copy, redistribute and modify a work and requires all copies and derivatives to be available under the same license. Copies can also be sold commercially, but if produced in larger quantities (greater than 100) then the original document or source code must be made available to the work's recipient."

WHS' comments, I would assume, fall under "derivatives" (at least in some respect). :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Further, I would like UCRGrad to defend his actions/edits in terms of the WP:OWN policy.--Amerique 18:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Amerique, four arbitrators have already ruled on this very issue. In reference to your allegations that I violated WP:OWN, their opinion was that "I don't see this is completely a 'one impossible editor' situation." It is inappropriate of you to continue to accuse me of violating this policy when WP administrators have already told you that this was not the case. UCRGrad 01:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
UCRGrad, we're all trying to maintain a civil tone on this page, so I don't think it's necessary to refer to comments made by Amerique as inappropriate. Also, the only thing officially ruled upon by the admins in the RFAr was that there hadn't been enough prior resolution procedures tried. While they indeed gave their opinion that they don't believe it's a one impossible editor situation, they didn't administer that as part of their decision on the case. --WHS 01:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Words can be used to mean various things, I agree - however, when phrases are taken verbatim from another person, and modified only slightly, it is plagiarism, plain and simple. I also agree that contributions placed in the Wikipedia ARTICLE text do not necessarily "belong" to an individual anymore - however, words/phrases/arguments written in a discussion, especially those that constitute a person's arguments, do. They are two different entities. UCRGrad 01:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
NOTE: Moved to prevent confusion. The way it was posted looked again like steve agreed with UCRGrad wen the comment was directed at a differnt point. Aeon Insane Ward 05:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
First, I agree that WHS' actions are not plagarism. It was clear to me that his actions and arguments were a parody of UCRGrad's.
Second, I do not like the way that copyright infringement and plagarism are being conflated in this discussion. It's possible for one to plagarize without commiting copyright infringement. Therefore the GFDL should play little or no role in discussions of plagarism. It would not be copyright infringement but it would certainly be plagarism for one to take the ideas of a Wikipedia editor and fraudently claim or represent them as your own. --ElKevbo 18:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I see ElKevbo's point, and second it. I'm still interested in hearing UCRGrad's defense of his actions/edits in terms of the WP:OWN policy.--Amerique 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away for a bit and may be away for a little bit longer, but I'm glad that it seems like most of us agree that my admittedly uncivil actions weren't plagiarism. --WHS 22:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you WHS for owning up and taking your share of the issue. That is what I'm looking for from all concerned. Aeon Insane Ward 01:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your application of the GFDL is incorrect in this situation, as ElKevbo also alludes to below. The GNU Free Documentation License relates only to COPYRIGHT and distribution - that is, GDFL-licensed work can be copied/distributed at no charge. However, it does NOT give an individual the right copy or modify without proper attribution to the original author. The preamble to the GDFL text specifically states: "this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work." Thus, whether or not work was written under a GDFL license is immaterial - either way, if it is not attributed properly, it can qualify as plagiarism. To offer a parallel example, if I were to make verbatim copies of a few sentences here and there from Wikipedia, incorporate them into an essay, and submit it as a college English paper (without citing Wikipedia), would I have committed plagiarism? The answer is yes. Well, could I then argue that since the work on Wikipedia is GDFL-licensed, I was immune from plagiarism? Obviously not. So you have your answer. UCRGrad 01:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Comments can be considered inappropriate when they involve accusations that a user has violated a policy when administrators have already ruled on the issue. I have the right to point this out. The written opinion of the arbitrators is the "law of the land" here in Wikipedia. You and other non-admins are expected to abide by it, because their determinations take the highest precedence here. If you stipulate that FOUR arbitrators "gave their opinion that they don't believe it's one impossible editor situation," then there really isn't much more to say about this. UCRGrad 02:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the case on that and the ruling was for the article not the editors UCGrad. While there was a note about "one editor in there" A statement was made on the conduct of all users. There for the ArbCom rejected this case based on the fact that other resoultion steps where not taken. Most likely if Medation, Advocate request and RfC was done this one would have been accepted. [Aeon1006]
Thank you for taking the time to read the case and confirm that the the arbitrators indeed wrote that this was not a "one-editor" situation, as Amerique continued to allege. In addition, you are correct that a statement was made that encouraged all parties to engage in discussion and assume good faith, since they felt that ALL editors had been stubborn and difficult to work with. However, it is pure speculation on your part that the case would have gone to arbitration, had mediation/advocacy/RFC had been completed. In fact, if you re-read Morven's opinion, he quite clearly believes that our dispute so far has "produced a pretty decent college article." Another arbitrator even too it upon himself to comment that my contributions represented a significant point of view. Amerique likes to argue that had all the resolution steps been followed, her case against me would have gone to arbitration. However, reading the ArbCom's opinion, in deciding not to arbitrate, it is clear that they felt ALL parties were to blame for the current contention, not ME specifically. Re-read it and see what I mean. Thanks. UCRGrad 17:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Now for the GFDL. GFDL applies in this UCGrad sorry but ALL text in wikipedia belongs to everyone. Can't get around it. Also I moved both your post to the bottom. Please post comments like this on the bottom since this is all on the same issue. It makes it look like the post below agreed with you and could lead to confusion thank you Aeon Insane Ward 02:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Aeon1006, please respond to this: UCRGrad 23:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Aeon1006, please make sure you understand the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism. Copyright is a legal term that refers to specific rights of a copyright holder (i.e. to copy/sell/display/etc. the work). Plagiarism, on the other hand, is a violation of an ethical standard that mandates proper attribution when words or ideas are borrowed from another individual. Please note that copyright and plagiarism are distinct entities. You can violate copyright without plagiarizing, and vice-versa. Consequently, it is inconsequential that a GDFL license does or does not exist, becuase GDFL defines COPYRIGHT status only. In fact, there shouldn't be any confusion in this matter, since the text of the GDFL clearly states: "this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work." To further illustrate, I will repeat the example I provided previously: suppose I were to make verbatim copies of a few sentences here and there from Wikipedia, incorporate them into an essay, and submit it as a college English paper (without citing Wikipedia), would I have committed plagiarism? The answer is yes. Well, could I then argue that since the work on Wikipedia is GDFL-licensed, I was immune from plagiarism? Obviously not. So you have your answer. GDFL-licensure does not excuse plagiarism. UCRGrad 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The GFDL allows anyone to make derived works as per copyright, yes, but in a dialogue where comments are signed, there is no ambiguity as to where the original work came from, hence no possible plagarism (there is no ambiguity as to what the source was). Sure, it can hurt someone's feelings; this is why we should avoid it, yes? אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 14:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Not so. In such a dialogue, where users sign the statements they make, there is only "no ambiguity" over who submitted the statement. However, if WHS were to copy MY words, modify them ever-so-slightly, and submit them as a NEW statement that is signed "WHS," there IS NOW ambiguity over where most of his words originated. The proper way to eliminate that ambiguity is to attribute the stolen material to the original author (ME). Furthermore, since my words were used verbatim, quotation marks are necessary as well. This is why his actions constituted plagiarism. UCRGrad 17:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. plagarism really deals with Published works in most cases anyways in my opinion not comments and posts made on a site that can be edited by anyone. Even for expample this was made on a forum, most cases it would still not be plagerism since the post would belong to the forum not the owner of the comment. Since this is a Wiki and under a GDFL and it was a comment posted on a talk page and not under a copyright it really can't be called plagarism. Aeon Insane Ward 15:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Aeon1006, please respond to this: UCRGrad 23:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a common public misconception that plagiarism can only occur in published works (e.g. books) - perhaps this is because this is what we tend to read about in the media. People also are not aware that "copyright" and "plagiarism" are two distinct entities, as I explained previously. Briefly, one is a legal term, and the other is an ethical violation - either can occur exclusive of the other. To further clarify, when I post my arguments and sign them, then *I* am the originator of these words and phrases. Since my contributions are under GDFL, I do not own the copyright to anything I post - that is, I cannot personally dictate the printing/distribution/sale/profit/etc. of WP content, including things that I've written. HOWEVER, this does NOT mean that when I construct arguments and post them on the TALK page, that I did not write them. My writing is clearly signed, and there is no ambiguity that I wrote what I wrote (vs. in the actual article, we don't sign our contributions as part of the article text). Since this is a scholarly discussion (and not a Beavis and Butthead forum, for instance), in which arguments and counterarguments are rendered in order to decide content of a major article, it is plagiarism when someone steals your phrases and ideas. This has NOTHING to do with copyright or your "right" to distribute/sell/etc. your work. UCRGrad 17:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage all parties who have commented on this matter to learn about plagiarism - what it is and what is not. Lately, there have been a lot of "opinions" people have expressed, many of which have not been informed opinions. This is not surprising, since most students who are found guilty of plagiarism by academic honesty committees did not quite understand what was so wrong about their seemingly harmless actions. UCRGrad 17:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree this is not plagerism, I think as a messure of good faith and civility that WHS Apologize to UCGrad for coping his words on teh tlak page and editing them to suit his needs. This would help lay the issue at rest and allow us to move on from this issue. It is up to you WHS to make that choice Aeon Insane Ward 16:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already apologized multiple times for my actions. If UCRGrad and I-B show that they are truly dedicated to resolving this issue (such as by admitting wrong doing on their part or issuing an apology such as Amerique or I have), then I'll edit the talk page and remove the text that was supposedly plagiarized. Judging by their comments on this page and their continued contentious behavior on the talk page of the article, however, it doesn't appear that either of the two are ready to progress forward with this phase of dispute resolution. If it is this difficult to get I-B to acknowledge violations on his part that have been confimed, I can't imagine how this dispute will be settled in a civil manner. Of course, it would do well for UCRGrad and I-B to prove me wrong by doing just what I believe they are incapable of doing.--WHS 20:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

(NOTE: Not siding with either side here again) In that case IB and UCGrad need to Roger up then. You and Amerique have by the looks of it bent over backwards to be civil and resolve this issue. IB and UCGrad, this is to advise both of you, it would be in your best interrest to offer them an appolgy adn roger up for past issues. If you really want to solve this issue you need to roger up like Amerique and WHS have. You can't stay stubborne like this if you truly want a nice civil solution to this situtation, both sides have to give a little and so far only Amerique and WHS have. The ball is now in your court IB and UCGrad, what is it going to be? Aeon Insane Ward 21:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Aeon1006, I'm worried that you've taken sides now - this is concerning because IB asked you to be his advocate, but instead you are advocating against him or at the very least, behaving as informal mediator for both sides. At any rate, I would like to clarify a few points:
  1. I think that it is very important that all involved parties, including IB and myself, apologize to individuals whom they have wronged by their actions. This goes without saying.
  2. However, I do not think a party to should apologize to an individual who was not wronged by that party's actions. That also goes without saying.
  3. Consequently, if IB wronged anybody here, he owes that person an apology for that action. For instance, if IB allegedly engaged in sockpuppetry while Amerique or WHS was actively editing the article, he should apologize. On the other hand, if neither of these two individuals was involved with the article during the time of the sockpuppetry, then neither individual was actually harmed by his action - therefore, an apology is NOT warranted.
  4. On the same note, I was wronged by WHS when he committed plagiarism of my exact phrases and ideas. For this plagiarism, he has not admitted to it, nor apologized for it. He has only stipulated that his actions were uncivil, for which he apologized. If you agree that parties should apologize to individuals whom they have wronged by an action, then WHS needs to apologize for his plagiarism, which first requires that he admits to it. UCRGrad 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The request for an apology extends not just to sockpuppeteering (and you could acknowledge that you are also a sockpuppeteer instead of just mentioning I-B and throwing him under the bus), but to all past uncivility as well. In any case, this just goes to show. --WHS 21:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to confir with Steve. I feel that this is becoming a lost cause and needs comminuty input. Aeon Insane Ward 21:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Why would you confer with Steve, the OPPOSING party's advocate? Wouldn't it make MORE sense to confer with I-B, whom you agreed to be an advocate for? UCRGrad 23:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Because we have been working together to bring this to a close. And it longer matters as I'm no longer IB advocate but a neutral user now. Aeon Insane Ward 23:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. I don't think that we need community input. I believe in the power of individuals to work things out. Look- I'm a reasonable person. If someone points out where I have wronged them and I agree, I will apologize. I think what we the problem that we are having is here is organization. I think that it would be helpful if someone would list the grievences that they have against me in a concise and organized manner.

WHS. I just re-read your statement. You mentioned that I sounded condescending when I stated that I think this is affecting your health. This is not what was meant by that. At the time, you seemed upset and everyone knows the stress is not good for one's health, so I suggested that you get a soda. Getting a soda usually helps me when I get stressed. I regret that you felt that I was being condesending towards you. I hope we can put this matter behind us now. What do you say? Insert-Belltower 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No offense, I-B, but please don't insult my intelligence. It was absolutely clear that in the context of what you were saying, it was meant to be a patronizing comment. And furthermore, I'm a bit offended that not only have you not offered an apology for it yet, you're attempting to pass it off as if I misinterpreted what you said when your intention was obvious. I'll put this matter behind me when you acknowledge your incivility. --WHS 01:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel Amerique, WHS, IB and UCRGrad that this issue is bigger than what two members of the AMA can handle with out supprt from other meens. As I'm no longer IB advocate but just an neutral party now, I feel that an Request for Comment would help this issue out. I'm awaiting Steves reply on this. Sorry IB but I think this one needs to go to other meens. Aeon Insane Ward 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As I posted on my talk page, unless things are better articulated in a more succinct manner, I'd recommend that we move on with the dispute resolution process. This getting a bit overwhelming, just the sheer size of these arguments. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/poll) 00:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion Closed[edit]

TO ALL

Both me and Steve feel that this issue can't be solved by the AMA. I will be filing a Request for Comment in the next Day or two in order to help solve this issue. This Discussion is now closed. No furter debate will occur here, it is now up to the community to weigh in. Aeon Insane Ward 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)