User talk:Coren/Archives/2010/October

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


Your bot just warned me for a page I didn't make...

...and, in fact, was tagging for copyvio HalfShadow 22:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not an admin so I can't be sure, but since the bot already warned the original creator and the article was G12'd twice, it looks like an admin deleted the page while you were tagging it so your edit recreated the page and became a bot-target...again. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Still no explanation

In reference to this diff[1], I've asked you three times[2] [3][4] to clarify your comment and you have not done so. This is number four: In what way did I display battleground behavior? I was politely discussing the dispute on a talk page. That's exactly what WP:BATTLEGROUND says that I am supposed to do. Why are you voting against editors who are following the rules? This makes no sense and the fact that you can't even explain why or even bother responding is very troubling. I've been neutral in this dispute and simply follow what reliable sources are saying about this topic. It's sad indeed to punish editors for following the rules. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no answer I can give you that can satisfy you. If you honestly believe you have been "politely discussing the dispute" or that you have been "neutral in this dispute", then you are unable to assess your own behavior and examples would be dismissed as more example of behavior you incorrectly believe to have been correct. If not, your own opinion is already quite set and you are only looking for points to dispute. Either way, a response is not useful and can only worsen matters — and I've no intention to play that game.

There are eight separate editors examining this dispute — none of whom have a bone in your fight. If you are unable or unwilling to accept that their collective evaluation of the situation is reasonable, then there is nothing I can do to help you. You'll need to either take what we're saying on faith, or you'll end up in the same trouble over and over. — Coren (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Covington Pennsylvania

The CSBot identified this page as a copyvio of when, in fact, the outside page was obviously taken from Wikipedia. The outside page features a reiteration of census data in the inimitable Wikipedia style for all towns in the United States: "As of the census of 2000, there were 1,047 people, 402 households, and 297 families residing in the township. The population density was 28.9 people per square mile (11.1/km²). There were 470 housing units at an average density of 13.0/sq mi (5.0/km²). The racial makeup of the township was 97.52% White, 0.10% African American, 0.38% Native American, 0.29% Asian, and 1.72% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.57% of the population." That comes straight from Covington Township, Tioga County, Pennsylvania. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


I have posted a direct and simple question for arbitors to verify. I believe the finding of fact referenced may materially mistake facts (writing "accounts" when it actually means "the effect of year old rangeblocks"). It would be nice if you could verify the wording of this proposed, currently passing, finding of fact. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

False positive

I just created the article Masquerade (play) and within seconds CorenSearchBot suggested it was a copyvio of a video resource guide from the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Since my article is about a play written in Russian in 1835 by Mikhail Lermontov, this seems rather not a likely match. I do admid I am amazed at how fast that thing works -- and the suggested copyvio source document was a PDF file, even. It can't even imagine how on Earth you do that. Anyway, no problem, but this is a false positive, by a country mile. Herostratus (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarity (Olap the Ogre)

Saw your CU block of Olap the Ogre. A little unclear. Are you saying he wasn't who he says on his user page, or that it's an unacceptable account even with that identification?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

See below. — Coren (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Read your answer below and it clears up the question I had. Thanks.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Olap the Ogre

Not that it likely matters, given the fact that the user retired the account. But can you explain your block and in particular the rationale? This account has been clearly announced as a replacement account. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And it would have been left alone had it not been accompanied by even more new alternates — not all declared. At this point, Prodego Polargeo needs to pick one and stick with it; repeatedly changing identity is disruptive and spreads contributions around making it difficult to reconstruct contribution history (not counting the fact that it's both confusing and annoying to the people trying to discuss things with someone who keeps quitting and coming back with a different account during the dispute). — Coren (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
In retrospect, though, that block didn't need to be marked {{checkuser}} — I double checked with the tool that it and the others were definitely the same users but that one wasn't blocked because of checkuser information but because of the disruption caused by the numbers of "alternates". At any rate, that's mostly academic, since the password to that account is supposedly lost so I doubt there will be a request to unblock it. — Coren (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, I believe that Coren is referring to User:Polargeo, not User:Prodego, who has not been involved in the Climate Change case whatsoever. Risker (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Agh. Yes, yes I am. Catastrophic brain failure. — Coren (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not certain if catastrophic brain failure is the condition that gets one to stand for ArbCom, or if it is only enforced once you are appointed (did they point a humming device with a large shiny mirror at your head after the election?), or if it is a natural risk coming with the job... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure bout running for election, but I'm pretty sure that the brain damage is prerequisite to running for reelection.  :-)

Martintg's topic ban violation

Here you warned Piotrus that any attempt to test the limits of the topic ban will result in its reinstatement. Martintg tried to do just this - and was blocked for a week (although actually the violation was pretty clear and 3 different admins agreed[5][6][7].) I think before the narrowing, Martintg was warned as well -- shouldn't the full topic ban now be restored? As I tried to show in my AE request, I believe Martintg has been consistently ignoring his topic ban from the very beginning. Offliner (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Austin Volk

I just started an article about Austin Volk who was a New Jersey politician and businessman. The bot said the article was a copyright violation because of an obituary I used as a citation. I just used it as a citation. In fact when I used the citation I made a mistake in spelling so initially the citation did not take hold. The article is a stub not an article. Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Werner Willikens

I am not a member of yahoo groups so I cannot see the text and therefore have no idea what you are talking about. I certainly didn't copy anything from any group but rather took all information from a variety of books as sourced in the article itself. Until the supposed source of copyright violation is available to those of us not involved in yahoo then I fail to see how I can even answer the allegations being thrown at me by some bot. Keresaspa (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Please delete User:Polargeo

I don't accept other users editing my user pages. It should be up to me to decide not you. You may request and negotiate but just leaping in an editing my userpage is extremely rude. Jbtscott (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it should not. People examining your editing history should be able to find your previous account, and people looking up your previous account need to be able to find the new one. In case you had not understood, linking the accounts to each other was not a suggestion, it was a requirement of being unblocked. I'm going to restore the redirect; please don't make me have to protect your former user page. If you prefer some other means of linking the accounts, you are welcome to alter the redirect into something else (for instance, the {{FormerAccount}} template would do), but the link between the accounts must be clear and direct. — Coren (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


How can you go about editing my userpages without asking. Do you think I cannot organise my own affiars. This is deeply deeply insulting. Jbtscott (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh and you blocked legitimate socks of mine. Such as PolargeoSock. Would you accept such legitmate socks of your own to be blocked? Or would other arbs accept this? Just seems to me like you have decided it is okay to shit on me from a great hight. Jbtscott (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
You are allowed to use exactly one account. — Coren (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Donaldson Prison

I don't see how it's a copyvio. I made my text all on my own. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what happened - I had some text that was quoted directly from the ADOC source that I was using to write new sentences, but I forgot to remove the quote. In this revision I removed the quotation WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

False positive: Carlos Arellano Felix

Seconds after I created the Article Carlos Arellano Félix y got a message from the bot. However, web page created an instant mirror web page of the article I just created. Thank you. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Disappointed in Wikipedia


Someone from your organization keeps writing me the below message. There is no way to communicate with this person. I originally came to wikipedia to introduce a topic for historical archive. I never wanted to write an article. The only way I could introduce it was to write the article by your policy. I had to read pages of protocol just to get to a finished product which was approved even though I thought it was poorly written and demeaned the original content. I worked on it for 3 days to get it to the point it didn't look like an amateur article. Then today I started getting disturbing error messages one after another with a suspicious and accusatory tone. Below is a sample of what I got and how I responded to it.

Whoever this is writing this to me has no talk back capability when I follow the link.

You shouldn't be writing about a topic with which you such an obvious personal association. (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all I never wanted to write this article just to introduce the event to be archived in history. As a newcomer to this site I am very disappointed in the direction this has taken. Please remove my article 140TH Anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation from your site. When I first came to wiki I thought you would be writing it. So when I was told to author it I attempted to include all facts. This was not a self promotional for me this event is over 6 years old and this time in history is gone. There is no money to be made from it or off it.

Whoever this suspicious person is they have been downright rude and accusatory, unnecessarily. I do not want a positive event to end up on your site with such a negative box and connotation added to it after the event's success. Please remove the article immediately. I find it slanderous. I have barely been on wikipedia for three days and I know no one personally. Thank you, for your civility. This was a horrible mistake and experience. Cwestllc (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As essentially the same message was left on my talk page, I have dealt with this issue there. If you’re interested, you might want to comment there … or not. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 08:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by A Quest For Knowledge

Hi. Because you are a member of the Arbitration Committee, I would like to make you aware of the following post.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've commented on this here.  Roger Davies talk 07:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
The only comment I'm going to offer, Quest, is that your bellicose reaction to what is, in the end, a simple topic ban (arguably one of our most gentle an measured remedies) is ample illustration of the importance of you needing to take a step back from the topic. Wikipedia isn't a place where one rights wrongs, or one battles for a cause — something which you have lost sight of. — Coren (talk) 14:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

GWR 3206 Class


This is the second time I have been warned about plagiarising this site - but obviously they are instantly plagiarising ME, a mirror article or whatever it is called. Please don't delete my work!!!8474tim (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry — human beings check the tags for correctness before any action is taken. The only thing the bot does is flag the similarity for human attention. — Coren (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Kim Dabelstein Petersen

Kim has proposed [9] a voluntary agreement modeled on S C Jessey's, but covering biographies of living persons, as well as these are relevant to his case. Since you have proposed closing the case, and bearing in mind that Kim is an editor of four years' good standing with no block record, I thought you should be informed. --TS 23:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please also note that Kim made the initial offer in principle on 3 October, but a lack of response delayed development of the agreement.[10] Kim's gone to bed, but his proposed agreement should be given full consideration. Thanks, dave souza, talk 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"Routine" cleanup concern

I just noticed your concern about "routine cleanup" edits that may fall within the topic of climate change. Please be assured that this will never amount to more than things like correcting spelling, formatting dates, adding dates to cleanup templates, fixing references, etc. None of the articles within the topic are on my watchlist (or have been for a few months now), so these would only occur if I came across them while looking something up, or via recent changes patrol. Please feel free to add a diff of this clarification to the text of the remedy if you feel it is necessary. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, my concern isn't just about what you would feel is cleanup, but also how others might dispute any of your edits as not cleanup. Just be careful. — Coren (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I will indeed. Thank you for the advice. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)



I'm responding to a message regarding my user name, and, I am providing feedback. For one, I have a fairly common name, and, it is short, so I use llc at the end of it to differentiate. I've been doing this for well over 10 years. Don't see a point of changing it now. Because of this consistency, I don't have to remember different logins for different sites, and, I use it for all my personal financial dealings as well. Never had anyone mention it to me before as being problematic.

SITE EXPERIENCE FEEDBACK My article submission was for an event which happened one time in history and I wanted to introduce it as possible content for your site. I sort of viewed wiki as being like a depository site, not a lifestyle change or a career move. I appreciate your help, support, and suggestions and in particular the final article. However, I can't say for sure I will be contributing again, there are too many rules and regulations, and I'm finding the Wikipedia dynamic as not being user friendly or welcoming, especially, when dealing with some of the volunteers. There seems to be a lack of respect for patrons and a dictatorship approach being taken and it is offensive. I'm a humanitarian by nature, so I don't take it lightly when others aren't civil, humane or treat others as equals. We are all human beings and should be treated as such. There is no above or below. Some wiki patrons do not want to be cattle-herded or talked down to. Simply put, some of the volunteers here at wiki should not be working with the general public. Their personalities are, unnecessarily, too harsh and abrasive. It reflects badly on your business when that occurs, giving the appearance of poor management and a lack of decorum. I do understand now why on all pages regarding communicating; you are stating patrons should be nice and write in pleasant tones. Clearly outlining the communication rules. You (not you personally, but you get my meaning, your volunteers) should follow the same advice you are giving others; it goes both ways. I had a different opinion of wikipedia before introducing content to your site. In the past, I have used it often. This has been, an unnecessarily, made unpleasant, experience, I would quickly like to forget. I feel like in a way, I that I have been involved in an online assault. Not the experience I was at all expecting. One of your volunteers chzz or whatever the acronym is for their name. In the IRC chat room the first day I signed on to write the article, was extremely abusive. My concentration at the time was pumping out the best article I could produce considering I am not an encyclopedia writer.

After every edit or change, this volunteered continued on in the same abusive manner, however, it got worst. From suspicion to accusatory even though I made it clear to them I had never written a wiki article. Some of us are in the late years of our career and have many successes under our belts. How could anybody think, writing one article and placing it on an open source, free, online community; could possibly make a difference in anyone's career status, it is the epitome of absurdity. By insinuating my motivations were self serving.

ON A FINAL NOTE Remember your patrons are allowing you to use their intellectual property to build up your site. Self serving is going on, from wiki through the outside links article writers are providing, and, from the reputable outside links coming back into wiki being listed on the article pages. There are many articles on the internet outside of wiki that outline user experience and wiki practices--good and bad. For the example, the FBI asking you to remove their logo from your site, citing that it violated federal law and their copyright (August 3, 2010). Equally, the links from some of the articles being introduced with links from reputable sites coming back in, are doing just that, and, including, us, allowing wiki the utilization of certain premium content. In, all intellectual property fairness, it should be balanced and include the article provider; other than that, it is akin to intellectual property rape, in some instances. Being fair would hardly constitute a conflict of interest, but, would be reflective of, a more mutually beneficial and respectful exchange. Consider this message being primarily for feedback and for the benefit of current and future content providers. Thank you, for listening. Cwestllc (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read and respond

You have voted on a finding against me. Please read and respond to this section and explain to me why my warnings directed at these admins were out-of-line. Thank you. ATren (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have expanded my evidence in that section. I believe my complaints against at least 3 admins (representing 5 diffs in my finding -- nearly half) had merit. And for the most part, I presented those concerns in a civil, impersonal tone. Given the evidence I've presented there, which establish the context of my complaints, I would like to know why my complaints were unwarranted. Please read and respond there. Thanks. ATren (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Coren: I've substantially responded on my talk page. It might be better to respond there, if you are minded to respond, to keep this somewhat centralised.  Roger Davies talk 05:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Coren. Would you be willing to clarify what "the problem is" in your view? That might help me give a better response. Best regards. Per Honor et Gloria  04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem, PHG, is that you fail to accept consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and editors who continually and insistently harp on an issue to "set the record straight" (whatever the issue is) are detrimental to the project. Yes, even if they are correct. You need to stop beating the dead horse, and since you are unable to do it yourself we are forced to do it for you. — Coren (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you Coren. This is much clearer. And I am perfectly OK to follow the rule of editorial consensus. But if I remember well, "consensus is not immutable": it is also perfectly accepted on Wikipedia that Consensus can change. This means, I think, that I can, from time to time, bring new evidence to the subject to check if the consensus is still the same. Regarding the Mongol occupation of Jerusalem etc..., the situation is much clearer than it was 3 years ago, and I think it would be nice to have a new discussion between editors interested by the subject. If it can help, I can formally promiss I will follow editorial consensus (I already do so in my other areas of Wiki editing). If I don't, of course you can easily restrict my editing again. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria  05:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

DJ Concept

in relation to the: DJ Concept article:

the page page does not exist anymore. furthermore i've updated the DJ Concept article, removing any unnecessary links & added reference links from external websites. thanks!

Handled elsewhere; tagging for archival. — Coren (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Socks and Jacob M. Appel

Coren, I note from block logs that you blocked a bunch of socks related to spam/promo at article Jacob M. Appel. Please see more about the socks, at Wikiquote village pump and Checkuser request on Wikiquote. Can you identify which one was the original sockmaster (from that block log of yours, seems you used similar block edit summaries on a bunch, referring to a massive sock farm), and then tag those sock user pages accordingly? Thank you for your time, this would greatly help the sock investigation, at Wikiquote. -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, looks like Vartanza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) may have been the oldest account, that should probably be the one tagged as the sockmaster? -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
From what I could see, everything on enwp was socks. Vartanza is a likely candidate, but they're hard to set apart here; I basically just did a sweep when their behavior was raised on checkuser-l from the mess on enwq under the presumption that they came from over there. Might just want to pick one and declare it master; or alternately take the one with the most recent history since that's going the be the most useful to find new socks? — Coren (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the master over at Wikiquote is "tratoo", so will probably just keep it uniform and go with that. Thank you for the helpful response! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Update: Blocked another possible sock, Njgarver (talk · contribs). Please see category at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TRATTOOO, and let me know if there are any from the above-linked-block-logs, that I may have missed tagging? -- Cirt (talk) 08:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The socking appears to be working overtime on Wikipedia articles; my contribution history is full of welcome messages for SPAs reverting most every edit related to Appel and beyond. Not sure if this is part of the same investigation or if I need to initiate a new one, but I have been questioning the ever-growing number of references and chunks of content and quotes dedicated to promoting Appel's blog columns and literary works. Flowanda | Talk 08:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Is this across other articles, or just at Jacob M. Appel? -- Cirt (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. The SPAs are adding and protecting edits related to Appel on a number of articles. A large number of them were removed in February, but have been since been readded. At Sex toy, for example, his blog post is referenced 4 times, and his comments, quoted no where else in the media, are given a blocck quote, while at Populus#Art, his play is referenced. Flowanda | Talk 08:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
There are currently a couple hundred articles that cite, quote, or mention Appel with links to his page. Most seem to give undue emphasis to his opinions as representative of some points of view, and some mention his fictions as "cultural references" of dubious relevance. The puppets have been very busy. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you double check with the 2 sock categories Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of TRATTOOO and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of TRATTOOO, and see if there are still any as yet unblocked socks? -- Cirt (talk) 08:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Zoooto, User:QuiggBy and User:Tenneblind, but there a dozen or so others with just a couple of edits; they all seem to be throwaway accounts. Flowanda | Talk 09:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Blocked those. Can you please list the other dozen or so more that are not yet blocked, including IPs? -- Cirt (talk) 10:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I will, but it will take some time, and the number is probably more like a dozen dozen. A good number of the Appel article blue links (The Cimarron Review for instance) were created to provide links to the article (and add to the appearance of notability), and some of the SPAs were also busy creating articles about other mentioned writers, some notable (like Stephen Lovely), some not (Lyle Roebuck), but just as policed and protected. It might be better if I compile the list on my talk page (or somewhere else), so I don't interrupt the flow here? Flowanda | Talk 18:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Yep, using the one believed to be the puppet master on wq is probably the most consistent (and comprehensible) thing to do. — Coren (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Flowanda, at whichever location you choose, such information would be most helpful, just keep us posted. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Locomotive photo uploads

I have recently been uploading a lot of photos of steam locomotives. To start with I did this to, but then I went over to Wikipedia Commons where they can be more widely accessed and also I can insert them into articles in French, German etc. Wikipedia. To questions:

1) Can I find the earlier photos I uploaded in the form of a Gallery, as you referenced for me in relartion to Wikipedia Commons?

2) Can I transfer my files from en.w to commons.w, without having to laboriously upload them all again from scratch? It would be nice to have everything in one gallery.

  • Best wishes, 8474tim (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm really not an expert on images; but my understanding is that there is a bot (automated process) that copies media over to the commons neatly if it has a suitable license and is tagged with the appropriate template. I'm sure if you ask on Wikipedia talk:Images, someone there can give you a more useful description of the process, though. — Coren (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot on Security Industry Association

I have a response to an apparent action by the bot here. Hope I've covered all the antecedent bases. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have an updated response now here and at the SIA talk page. As I say there, I've taken a little bit more time with what you (via bot) have given me, and think I have enough to take the appropriate alternate route to my goal. I don't have the time to tackle it at the moment, but hope to be able to, soon. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


UnoiCsmZpTlkinrmKACc (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC) How many times do I have to get an affirmative answer that the content of the side I used is "my" side and it's okay to use this content? I don't get it! The data base doesn't exist where everybody can check if the side has any copyrights or not? I'm waiting for month to get it on the wikipage of COMPASS-2

The website needs to explicitly grant the right to copy, under a CC-BY license compatible with Wikipedia's licensing. If it is your site, you can change it to show this license. Follow the procedures at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. Franamax (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your thoughts

It seems that this has skipped everybody's attention. I'd appreciate yours and other committee members' thoughts on it, and if possible, on the underlying proposal. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I responded there. — Coren (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Do you think there will be some more activity on the amendment? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Probably as CC finally winds down. It's not especially fair, but the "tame" matters tend to be stuffed on a shelf out of the way when a major resource drain like that case is on the center stage — we're all volunteers with limited availability so this kind of limited attention span is inevitable if regrettable. I expect things will return to normal within the week. — Coren (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ben Webster Foundation

Hello Coren, I already wrote (explained) this at the time I created the article. I said: "...used most of the wordings from official Ben Webster site in Denmark for now."

That (above) mentioned site is the official Ben Webster Foundation site and I'm aiming to come with some more (different) wordings if it's necessary and obligatory. I just sent an e-mail to the chairman of the Ben Webster Foundation in Denmark. His name is Henrik Wolsgaard-Iversen. Ben Webster Foundation Contact Info. I am waiting his response. Thanks.Fusion is the future (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Just now, I received an e-mail from the chairman of The Ben Webster Foundation, he says this:

from Henrik Wolsgaard-Iversen <> to Fusion Is The Future hide details 1:59 PM (18 minutes ago)

Dear Fusion - whoever you are...

Thank you for your initiative. I have no negative comments to your Wikepedia piece - in fact I'm happy that you took the time and energy to publish it. So thank you. Go ahead.

henrik Iversen, chariman of the Ben Webster Foundation

I forwarded the e-mail with permission to use the text to Thanks Fusion is the future (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, I'm just letting you know that I received a second permission e-mail, this time with the text of said article, and already forwarded to permission-en. Thanks Fusion is the future (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Plumpie arbcom case community handling

You voted to accept the case, though the rest of the arbs seem to be trending not. I propose to take it up within the community. I would appreciate your input on that on the case.


Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, like I said, there is no reason the community couldn't handle the matter with a suitable sanction; but that's an area where the community has a hard time reaching consensus when not modeling on a previous case. I think this is a case that could be settled swiftly by a committee motion and that would simplify things in the future for comparable problems— but I'm just one member of a committee after all.  :-) — Coren (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't see much difficulty in reaching a community decision...
I think it would be within an admins' discretion to indef the user until they engage in constructive discussions related to the RFC issues and other issues on their talk page. If they can't or won't engage in those discussions, that ends the problem... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm on record as saying that admin discretion covers a lot of ground when applied with deliberation, and that seems like an eminently reasonable exercise of it to me; but that sentiment is far from universally held. There's certainly no reason that you couldn't try, but please don't dig in if it gets objected to. — Coren (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I have done this; if anyone objects strenuously I'll let consensus lead things from there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did you not respond to my request?

I requested you review evidence regarding my finding and comment. Did you review it? If not, why not? And if so, why didn't you comment? ATren (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Because there is nothing I could say that hasn't already been said; and no point in repeating any of it as the case comes to a close. — Coren (talk) 11:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
No, that doesn't cut it Coren. You voted on a finding against me, and were notified in plenty of time to re-examine evidence I provided in my defense. My message is from several days ago. You apparently ignored it and are now claiming there's no time. Frankly, that's a cop out.
So, if you would please just answer the following questions:
  1. Did you read my additional evidence?
  2. If you did read it, I addressed the abhorrent behavior of 3 admins in that evidence. Do you deny the misconduct of these admins, which including belittling statements, personal attacks and blatant misrepresentations?
  3. Based on the actions of those admins, as represented in the findings, how do you defend the diffs in my finding where extended polite warnings to those admins?
  4. In my recent evidence (and JWB's as well), several editors were identified who exhibited patterns of behavior that were at least as bad as mine or JWB's. Why are they absent from these findings? I am particularly concerned about SBHB and Stephan Schulz, who belittled Lar for months and have no battlefield finding.
ATren (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You are mistaken if you believe it is necessary or useful for individual arbitrators to comment on every piece of submitted evidence. If I had found your claims convincing, I would have changed my vote accordingly.

Your primary error lies in the presumption that if I did not agree with you, then it must be because I ignored your arguments. If you step back a moment, you may realize that this very line of flawed reasoning is the primary cause of disputes in general on Wikipedia (and in real life) -- and in the whole AGW mess. In fact, reread your questions to me: loaded questions, presumptive, and combative. I don't see a defense, there, but a number tu quoque attacks that simply illustrates the need for you to take a break from that topic. — Coren (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

So, to be clear: you've read the evidence and refuse to change your vote. That's all I was looking for, thanks. ATren (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Message on Paul Jaeg

There is no copyright violation. When you look at the link the robot provided, you quickly see that there is only the same name of a French person. Has nothing to do with the Austrian artist and writer. Please remove this template. --Torsten Wittmann (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot false positive

Greetings, your bot has marked FEU PHILIPPINES (now deleted by me as a duplicate of Far Eastern University) as a copyright violation from In fact is a mirror site, copying articles from Wikipedia. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Pejačević Castle in Virovitica

Hello, Coren. As for my article Pejačević Castle in Virovitica, the address "" is quoted as external link. If some words or group of words in my text are the same to those mentioned in that specified journal, it might be so. But sometimes it is hard to avoid the exact words from somewhere and to write the synonyms (and avoid a copyright violation).

Please, specify which words are copied illegally, so I could rearrange the text. Otherwise, remove your warning note. Regards, Silverije (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment/observation

Re this [11]. I've spent some serious time thinking about why Eastern European topics is such a mess. And why interventions such as discretionary sanctions don't seem to help at all. You can read these math-y musings if you want to [12] [13]. The general point though is that conflict ridden areas need a carrot as well as a stick. If all you've got is a stick, and if all you can do is punish behavior then you gonna end up punishing bad editors as well as "good editors-who act-badly-just-because-they edit-in-a battleground area". If you reward editors for good behavior though you will be rewarding good editors as well as "bad editors who behave well just because they will get a reward". But that's better. Of course everyone should behave well because it's the right thing to do. But peoples are peoples and they just might not do that. From the perspective of the encyclopedia, if bad editors behave appropriately for sake of a reward do we really care about their motives?

The hard part is coming up with the kinds of rewards that will matter. Right now Wikipedia doesn't really have any meaningful ones. But sometimes a simple comment of appreciation could help. Maybe there'd be some benefit in establishing a "Calm, Neutral Eastern European Topics Editor Award" (A Knee-Tea), given out by uninvolved but knowledgeable outside editors who pay attention to the area. It'd have to be limited in supply - so that somebody really has to earn it - but at the same time understanding of the fact that this is a conflict ridden area.radek (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Berthe di Vito-Delvaux

Is anyone coming around to review Berthe di Vito-Delvaux? I don't see any violation. Pkeets (talk) 06:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Raven Hawk

Sorry! I can't speak english. 1s9s9s4s0823 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC).

Copyvio on St Petrock's Church, Parracombe

Within seconds of me putting up the initial stub of the St Petrock's Church, Parracombe article CorenSearchBot tagged it as a probable copyright violation saying the text came from the article on Everything Exmoor about Parracombe. I had not looked at this page, having used the Images of England and Churches Conservation Trust references used on the article. I did however copy a paragraph from the wikipedia article on Parracombe which I now see is a copyvio of the Everything Exmoor article and I will tag it as such. I have since rewritten the text on this article.— Rod talk 19:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


I just saw that the CC and RI cases have been recently closed. Does that mean we can expect more activity here? Also, thanks for your comment at the clarification page. Would you have any thoughts on the issues discussed here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's going to take us a bit to finish winding down, but yes — this means other matters will be taken care of. — Coren (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Mute Magazine

Hi there was a note that a bot said I'd copied my last post from I think this is a mistake as I was making sure that I wrote all the material myself, thanks. MrChristian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrchristian (talkcontribs) 10:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agnes Tyrrell, Josephine Troup

These article were tagged on October 16, but I don't see them listed at "Copyright problems/NewListings" on that date. Does that mean no one will be around to review them? Pkeets (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) They're listed by the bot at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2010-10-16 which is transcluded (collapsed) onto the top of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 October 16 (I know, it's a little confusing), and I should get around to reviewing the 16th today. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Work Continues

You can not add directly to this page to see the label. work in progress. When finished it will give coverage to remove the label.--Türk Süvarisi (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Work Completed

List of foreign football players in Hong Kong First Division League is composed of a combination of 4-page article, arrangements will continue. Delete this page you request is not to put the label. good work. --Türk Süvarisi (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For you and CorenSearchBot

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Hi Coren! I'm afraid you and CSB will need to share this award, which I present to you both; for the bot's hard work dealing with copyvio issues, and your hard work in creating the bot and all the other things you do around Wikipedia! ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 00:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Bot says, "54 68 61 6e 4a 73 21".  :-) — Coren (talk) 01:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Desiree Clouseau

My edit citing the Desiree Clouseau Biography website was deleted as vandalous, and materialscientist said it was unreliably sourced. The website is referenced by the article already, so shouldn't my contribution be kept? (talk) 01:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

misleading link on User:CorenSearchBott

Hey, I just noticed that even though the user page of CorenSearchBot says "There are instructions on the bot's talk page explaining what to do if this bot tagged your article as a probable copyright violation.", this is apparently no longer true. There is ofcourse the page notice of your talkpage, but that is only visible once you try to edit the page. Yoenit (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

My sock farm

Hi Coren. Is there any news on those accounts. If you are concerned about publically revealing why Hersfold thought those accounts are linked to me I would still very much appreciate an email giving me the general gist to which I might be able to reply. It is difficult to stand accusued and not to be able to defend. For example were those accounts set up under my work IP (British Antarctic Survey) or my home IP (several different possibilities under or an open proxy such as I stupidly used for the first time ever to set up Jack Vine and LilyNiviaq so I could do some unrelated editing after I abandoned the Jbtscott account. Or the PolargeoShutdown account I used to email other users because I had no talkpage access (for one reason or another). Just so you know I was extremely pissed off with your blocks and editing of my userpage and I reacted badly. I understand you deal with difficult users on a day to day basis but with me a simple request without the heavy handed stuff would have worked wonders, I had just come back from paternity leave and been hit with finding myself part of the new remedy 3 topic ban. I am not blaming you for my reaction, usually I am more stable, you caught me at a bad moment. Oh well water under the bridge and all that. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

You're probably not going to like the answer, Polargeo, but I agree with Hersfold's evaluation. The accounts in question were all created on from the same IP where you have created LilyNiviaq, from a computer whose browser is configured identically to yours. While it is possible that the IP in question (which appears to be a hosted server) has an anonymous proxy, the fact that LilyNiviaq is the only account created from that server, along with the others blocked by Hersfold, combined with the exact browser match, is well beyond the minimal standard of evidence considered sufficient to mark accounts as socks of one another.

On a more practical front, I don't expect that it makes any difference either way. You've socked a bit (no matter exactly which or how many accounts), you're not going to sock again, and you are currently unblocked and welcome to continue editing. Everyone have bad days or weeks on occasion and the best thing to do onward is to just put this behind you. — Coren (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah so someone used the open proxy 8 days before I did to create some accounts and was editing using mozilla firefox. The fact that at the time this was done I was logged in as Polargeo and editing under my normal IP is no mitigating factor. Oh well that is going to teach me not to use an open proxy ever again then isn't it. I suppose I can just be thankful they didn't edit and say "fuck that bastard arb Coren." or similar :) Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
That's indeed one of the very good reasons to avoid open proxies. — Coren (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Bot should have a time check

This bot has to have a time check: I am right in the middle of an edit and this bot really annoys me. Even the edit page has tons of text to be read! -- Tomdo08 (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Any chance

Hi Coren is there any chance you can grant me autopatrolled and rollback. Two rights I had before I got the bit. As someone who has been active in both creating pages and new page patrolling/CSD and has shown no problems in these areas it seems sensible to have these permissions. I was granting these rights to others just a month ago with no complaints. Polargeo 2 (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. — Coren (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

CC Topic ban - includes or exclude user talk pages?

Color me confused. The CC Topic ban does not include user talk pages. I don't believe this was an inadvertent omission, as I (vaguely) recall some discussion about the scope, so I assume that the omission was intentional. As such, I don't see how the talk page edit of WMC constitutes toeing of the line. Am I wrong in thinking that user talk pages are outside the scope of the ban? I didn't want to derail the discussion if my premise is flawed--SPhilbrickT 12:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it is not. However, continuing to "raise attention" to points of contention is almost certain to degenerate into further battles sooner or later -- and is ill-advised at best. People under a topic ban should strive to stay away from the topic, not weave around the ban to continue as much involvement as possible; it will not reflect well when sanctions are reevaluated, it promotes continuing grudges and disputes, and almost always in one editor baiting another into breaking the actual letter of the ban and get into further trouble.

Hence the bit about toe the line: the risk of stepping over the line increases greatly the closer you try to stick to it. It's preferable to keep a healthy distance away. — Coren (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I would find it easier to support your point if the topic ban was a, well, topic ban. No discussion of the subject on WP. Explicitly failing to list user talk pages left me with the impression that WMC wasn't even in sight of the line. (I started to write more, and then decided this isn't the right forum to continue the discussion—thanks for clearing up my confusion, I'll mull over whether I have anything useful to say, and look for a place to say it.)--SPhilbrickT 15:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake even in raising this problem of continued sniping and bickering at WP:AE and later at WP:AN. Since the Committee is aware of it and it's not strictly something WP:AE can handle, I think it's best to leave further action to arbcom. Raising the topic has encouraged topic banned editors to converge on the discussion and continue to air their grievances, an event that I regret that I did not foresee.

I will speak no more of the problem anywhere on Wikipedia. --TS 14:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ban appeal

Please help This one has a twisted history and I really need someone to help me with this. Please see here and post to my talk at your earliest convenience. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 23:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 05:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Robert Hottot

Copyright.Mea culpa.I got bits text from Pitt-Rivers.I have rephrased the article completely and put in the reference link to the authors. I see, incidentally that Pitt Rivers Museum use a lot of Wiki info and pics themselves. You are absolutely right though and I'll be more careful in future.All the best Robert PS Now I really look into it he is interesting but not a lot more. Nice website though and some early stereo photos but it's the Paris collections that count. Hoping to have info on those soon. Notafly (talk) 09:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Rogue administrators

I am writing because one or more admins are blocking accounts from users who happen not to agree with them. My crime was to post these comments. I will leave it to you to decide whether or not the charges are valid. My attempts to complain have also been blocked. Attempts to contact you by email and phone also failed. I had to change my IP address in order to be able to contact you. I suspect a very large number of users have similarly been falsely accused and have been unable to contact you because they did not know how to alter their IP address. Alternate user name (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

An admitted block-evading sock, hmmm. RlevseTalk 00:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
You should, actually, be thankful that you have not succeeded in reaching me by phone: I have extended no invitation for such an invasion of my private life to you and I would not have reacted kindly to rudeness of that magnitude. — Coren (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What happened?

Re: ban appeal After I posted this message, I was surprised that you did not respond at my talk page or yours. Reviewing your edits since that time, I don't see you posting anywhere else about this either. I may not be the most knowledgeable about ArbCom process or what constitutes etiquette on Wikipedia, but if you deliberately snubbed me that seems rude. If I got lost in the shuffle or I'm somehow not using the proper channels, then that's understandable, but at lest a simple note on my talk would be appreciated. I'm assuming that this is some miscommunication rather than outright ignoring; please let me know what's going on here on my talk at your earliest convenience. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 07:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For that [14]. We needed an arb to weigh in there and dispel all the conjecture about what a topic ban is, even though to those of us on the outside it seems perfectly obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it is settled at all. Coren's original point distinguished, Category 1, things that one must not do, from category 2, things that one should not do. His latest post emphasizes that WMC's action is something that one should not do (category 2).
I interpreted category 1 as action that deserve a block on sight, while category 2 deserve a warning, then, if repeated, a block.
If the resulting actions are identical—block on sight, what on earth is the point of making a distinction? Why on earth would we need to "amend the decision" to include category 2, if those edits earn a block on sight? I thought the original discussion made perfect sense. Anything explicitly listed in the topic ban could results in an immediate block, or whatever sanction the admin deemed appropriate. Other edits, not squarely in the topic ban are the subject of discretionary sanctions, which means an admin can warn, then block, without getting ArbCom input or community consensus.
It appears I've missed something, but despite repeated requests, no one has pointed out my error. I accept that the community has made a decision and moved on, but I'd still like to know where my reading of multiple comments which all hang together (except the comment by Carcharoth) went wrong. I thought my reading was entirely consistent with Coren's original post and clarification. I still do. --SPhilbrickT 00:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, even if we granted the point that "should not do" falls into the "must be warned" category, WMC would be hard-pressed indeed to claim he was not warned — repeatedly — that his continuing actions on his talk page would land him in hot water (and, indeed, I took the time to do so myself). Just as a block for edit warring doesn't require breaking 3RR, behaving in a way you know is against the spirit of a restriction is begging for the restriction to be applied liberally.

That said, the primary effect of editors doing their best to continue the battle despite the restriction is to sabotage their own future appeal. (The expression "rope to hang oneself" comes to mind). The block, in my opinion, was not necessary at this point, but certainly well within the spirit of the sanctions and a reasonable community response to behavior it's damn tired of. — Coren (talk) 01:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That said, the primary effect of editors doing their best to continue the battle despite the restriction is to sabotage their own future appeal. You're laboring under the assumption that the person in question would want to appeal, which as a mutual friend would say "assumes facts not in evidence." What if someone has become convinced that they're screwed no matter what? Might they just as soon act as they want rather than bow and scrape for what they see as no ultimate purpose? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I labor under the assumption that even the worst behaved editor may well have a change of heart and realize that they are undermining themselves rather than successfully making any point. WMC certainly has the capacity to edit productively and collaboratively in the area, but has completely lost the ability to maintain perspective. That he is unable or unwilling to spend any period of time away from that topic area simply demonstrates the need for him to step away from it. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that you would be willing to give someone who genuinely reformed a fair shake. But I do not believe that to be true of all of the Arbitrators, and I am not alone in that belief. (I'll refrain from giving my honest views on individual arbs in deference to WP:NPA.) So I still think the "screwed no matter what" perspective has some plausibility. I'm not asking you to agree with that perspective, but merely to recognize that someone could act on the basis of such a view. I do not know, myself, what the real situation is. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I think you're giving too little credit to the other arbs if you think that. I'm unarguably one of the most stern and unforgiving of the bunch, actually, though I try to remain vigilant about my own fairness (and I thank you for your trust in that regard). I can safely say that no member of the committee is acting out of vindictiveness, or out of a desire to flex authority.

Certainly, I can empathize how someone who found themselves at the sanction end of a case might feel that the system is broken or biased — few people end up at arbitration without the conviction that they were correct after all — but that does not mean that it is reasonable to let them continue the very behavior that got them into trouble to begin with. If you just got a citation from a policeman that you disagreed with, the last thing to do is to leave by running a red light. — Coren (talk) 01:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

While WMC's behaviour has nearly always been in the grey area between WP:SPADE and incivility, with generally good content contributions marred by at least one questionable BLP issue, his actions on vandalism have been sound. I've commented at AE, my feeling is that a clear and credible path to resumption of constructive editing by WMC in his area of expertise would at least make it possible for me have reasonable confidence in advising WMC. As it stands, the decision looks very much like fulfilment of the aims of those whose focus has been on removing WMC. Your comparison with a citation from a policeman is interesting, please note that WMC's response has been to contribute to neighbourhood watch, not to run a red light. . . dave souza, talk 17:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi Coren: I see a lots of unnecessary hostility going towards me from some users, including sockpuppetry allegations. I'm not an experienced editor and lack specific knowledge to deal with it. Can you help me with filing a complaint against these users for continuously alleging me as a sockpuppet of GoRight, SciBaby or someone else?

Diff: [15]

Diff: [16]

I appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks. EngineerFromVega (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You could have started by complaining to the editors in question personally on their talk pages. Of course you are right in general: The proper way of dealing with suspicious behaviour such as yours is a formal sockpuppet investigation. I will probably file one tomorrow, although I am not sure whether that is acceptable when there is no clear evidence of a connected account, but just a general impression of fake inexperience and unenthusiastic pro-forma edits outside a single hot area. Hans Adler 18:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help Hans. Being an inexperienced editor, I need some time to familiarize myself with required WP processes. I've followed your advice with good faith [17]. TheEngineerAsk 05:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I rather object to the suggestion that I have been "continuously alleging \EFV\ as a sockpuppet of GoRight, SciBaby or someone else". I am on the record as saying that I do not think EFV is a sockpuppet of GoRight or SciBaby. I am on the record as saying that I think the sock allegation is a bit of a red herring (mainly because I was assuming good faith). I am however beginning to wonder if EFV has something to hide. --Merlinme (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Another PD tag to whitelist

There's a spree of new stubs with {{usgs-gazetteer}} which we've been tagging unnecessarily. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Coren (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for Input

Hi Coren... As you may be aware, there has recently been discussion and criticism of the DYK project relating to plagiarism issues. In a discussion at WT:DYK, I suggested that maybe a bot such as yours could scan an article on request as part of the review process. The discussion at WT:DYK#Proposal for trial has picked up on this idea, and I am asking you to provide any imput you might be willing to offer. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply at WT:DYK, I'd like to ask a follow-up question, if I may. Can the manual request be set to look at an older version of the page? It detected no problem with Brown Lady of Raynham Hall but I now notice that SandyGeorgia has put up a copyvio notice so the potentially problematic text was gone when the Bot looked. Since the question for DYK is in part what can be detected, it'd be nice to see what the Bot would say about an earlier version of the article. EdChem (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't have any support for it right now, but it shouldn't be too hard to allow putting a permlink instead of a wikilink to check a specific version. Lemme look into it and come back to you on that. — Coren (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

== Plagiarism ==

After all the recent fuss (including today's TFA, Grace Sherwood), your name was brought up here after I raised the question of whether it was possible to create a bot that scans sources within articles for copyright violations.

Would it be possible? It would certainly save a lot of embarrassment. Parrot of Doom 13:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's possible, though perhaps not as trival as first appears. See also the thread just above where it's being discussed for DYK. I never though of explicitly following sources, however (given that the bot presumes that if you take the time to credit, then nothing fishy is going on). Might need a new version designed for this, and I can see the use. I'll investigate. — Coren (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Parrot of Doom 16:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)