Grace Sherwood, Today's FA, plagiarized by Rlevse Options

[Theanima]

Today's featured article, Grace Sherwood, has apparently been plagiarized by none other than Rlevse (T-C-L-K-R-D) , arbitrator, checkuser, bureaucrat and all the other hats.

His response? Retirement.

I wonder how many of his other FAs are plagiarized too? See here for the discussion.

This post has been edited by Theanima: Sun 31st October 2010, 12:22pm

[Cedric]

I wonder how many of his other FAs are plagiarized too? See here for the discussion.

The link no longer works, and I cannot find the discussion in the archives either. Maybe it got wished into the cornfield.

If memory serves, this was not the only plagiarism episode involving Rlevse.

[Theanima]

I wonder how many of his other FAs are plagiarized too? See here for the discussion.

The link no longer works, and I cannot find the discussion in the archives either. Maybe it got wished into the cornfield.

If memory serves, this was not the only plagiarism episode involving Rlevse.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page. Apparently he's resigned all of his user rights too.

[lilburne]

The FA of 1st August was full of cut&paste stuff too.

[trenton]

I wonder how many of his other FAs are plagiarized too? See here for the discussion.

The link no longer works, and I cannot find the discussion in the archives either. Maybe it got wished into the cornfield.

If memory serves, this was not the only plagiarism episode involving Rlevse.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page. Apparently he's resigned all of his user rights too.

and anybody keeping count of the number of times hes "resigned" and stormed off in a huff?

[powercorrupts]

I find Rleves pretty shocking. The way he takes/took charge of the "XX is an Awesome Wikipedian - and has his own Day" nonsense to prejudice important RFC's, and to generally promote his own prejudices (without seeing the need to give a reason for his decision) was/is seriously bad news.

I wonder what would happen if someone now went around rescinding them all before he comes back? I'm tempted to remove the one he gave the hatchet admin TenofAllTrades during the actual polling of the Community de-Adminship debacle, which Tenofall went out of his way to bring down and generally render unusable. They are more than just "harmless barnstars" - they appear to be semi-officious and even vote-awarded, and they do fool people.

Unfortunately, an ego like him will find his way back I expect. If he's done it before, someone should make one of those counters for the amount of times a user pretends to retire, in the style of a massive award.

[Milton Roe]

The FA of 1st August was full of cut&paste stuff too.

Well, what do you expect, friends? If you really wrote your own stuff, you'd be guilty of WP:SYNTH. In theory, you could sew together a bunch of direct quotes with cites, but the result looks sort of like Fankenstein's monster, sutures, boxtop head and all. So you have to re-word stuff to smoothe out the style, and now you're synthesizing toward a point again, although you may be trying to balance that point against another like crazy, as per NPOV.

Wikipedia's rules are really written so that they are nearly impossible to violate while writing a nice long grade A article for FA status. So there's this endless temptation.

Rlevse has run afoul of the temptation machine. Gee, surprise.

Personally, I prefer to WP:SYNTH. When I get caught, somebody sticks {{reference}} tags all over my stuff and sometimes somebody else even goes so far as to delete it. I'm coming to realize that the cure for that is to move along to a different article. If they do it too much, I'll just scale back on writing. I'm never going to do admin chores, so they can choke, there.

[lilburne]

It is almost impossible to adhere strictly to a complex rule book. One should always make sure ones opponent is made to adhere to theirs.

[Kelly Martin]

So the real question to be answered here is who did Rlevse piss off so badly that his Cabal shield was punctured? Normally if a Cabalista were to be accused of plagiarism, the shield would have protected them, usually by finding some way to dismiss the accuser as a crank/troll/sockpuppet/meatpuppet/etc. The fact that Rlevse was not protected suggests that he had lost favor.

Virtually everyone on Wikipedia can be accused of some sort of violation of the rules or another, because the rules are so antinomic; avoiding the consequences of such accusations is almost entirely a factor of who your friends and enemies are.

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

I really, genuinely, hope the guy makes it out of the Wikipedia's black hole gravitational pull and back to an orbit of his own and his family's.

I hope this is his time.

[EricBarbour]

So the real question to be answered here is who did Rlevse piss off so badly that his Cabal shield was punctured?

Any diffs that might provide more information have apparently "vanished".

AFAICT, most of the stink was raised by SandyGeorgia and Moonriddengirl, but who knows what was said off-wiki.

* Sandy, your "rather unhappy" note appears to have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and to have prompted a retirement. You've also been adding on a few other straws. Maybe you can now accept that your approach is causing problems? EdChem (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
o EdChem, Rlevse spent all day in conflict on his talk page because of unseemly comments he made here. It's not hard to see the writing on the wall when an Arb member gets into conflict all day over DYK plagiarism, and then is found doing same; do you think retirement is likely in such a case anyway? I'm talking about a content problem that has to be solved; I do wish you'd stop taking these issues personally, and personalizing them with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

There was an argument on AN/I, which was claimed to have been moved to the "Plagiarism and copyright concerns" area.
This looks related. But I'm not convinced it is the same text.
Something has clearly been disappeared.

I hope this is his time.

He certainly had his way with you in 2008.
(That was one of the most blatant examples of a WR thread being trolled by WP apologists
and Rlevse defenders I've ever seen. User:B made a real douche of himself--and he had help.)

Mr. Everette: you suck, sir. You think you're sneaky, yet now you're on the outs. Ha.

(But seriously, he'll hide/use alternate accounts for a few months, then quietly pop back up
and quietly be handed back all his powers. No one will notice or care, except on WR.)

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 1st November 2010, 3:39am

[Doc glasgow]

So the real question to be answered here is who did Rlevse piss off so badly that his Cabal shield was punctured? Normally if a Cabalista were to be accused of plagiarism, the shield would have protected them, usually by finding some way to dismiss the accuser as a crank/troll/sockpuppet/meatpuppet/etc. The fact that Rlevse was not protected suggests that he had lost favor.

Virtually everyone on Wikipedia can be accused of some sort of violation of the rules or another, because the rules are so antinomic; avoiding the consequences of such accusations is almost entirely a factor of who your friends and enemies are.

Not so sure about this. There's a lot of pride here.

Those at the core of the FA process have put a lot of time into it, and are often among Wikipedia's most educated, and most creative writers. They have a status as an elite - and when one of their own punctures that, they are not happy at all. Rightly so.

Many of them also have some academic experience, and in academia plagiarism is the biggest of cardinal sins. Anyone who has marked essays will pride themselves on spotting plagiarism - because failure to do so undermines both research and, indeed, education itself.

You can knock the FA process as claiming more than it can deliver. I am personally very critical of it. Its biggest problem is that it is simply too generalist to deliver. Reviewers, even good ones, seldom have any competency in the particular field they are reviewing, and (for other reasons) FA candidates tend to be quite specialist. I've gone through the process twice and my experience was that reviewers tended to focus on syntax and prose rather than content.

Plagiarism is actually fairly hard to spot. You have to access the sources and read them carefully, comparing them to the article. That's a long and laborious practice. It is also NOT how most plagiarism is spotted in academia. Most plagiarism is spotted because the subject specialist who is reviewing the work, or marking the essay, is already deeply familiar with literature in the field. So he tends to read something, think "that sounds familiar" and go checking. Either that, or he's scrutinising the work of one particular individual because he's already suspicious about their standards.

[Gruntled]

they appear to be semi-officious

They appear to me to be completely and 100% officious on Webster's definition ("volunteering one's services where they are neither asked nor needed: meddlesome"). In fact, a large proportion of what Rlevse has been doing for months, if not years, may be described as officious. That's how you get to be on ArbCom. If you mean semi-official, then yes, anything from an ArbCom member necessarily has a certain aura of officialdom attached to it, even if it isn't intended. (Not that it's unintended in his case.)

[Ottava]

Many of them also have some academic experience, and in academia plagiarism is the biggest of cardinal sins.

Besides me, who else has academic experience and cared about plagiarism?

I was the only one doing the plagiarism checks for a year and some and when I was booted no one bothered to step up.


By the way, plagiarism is easy to spot - look for a word that seems to "stylish", "fancy", or whatever. If the writing seems too good, check it. I was able to review over 250 articles at FAC for plagiarism without a problem.

This post has been edited by Ottava: Mon 1st November 2010, 2:46pm

[Doc glasgow]

Many of them also have some academic experience, and in academia plagiarism is the biggest of cardinal sins.

Besides me, who else has academic experience and cared about plagiarism?

I was the only one doing the plagiarism checks for a year and some and when I was booted no one bothered to step up.


By the way, plagiarism is easy to spot - look for a word that seems to "stylish", "fancy", or whatever. If the writing seems too good, check it. I was able to review over 250 articles at FAC for plagiarism without a problem.

I suspect many involved in the FA process do have some academic or research experience. But real professional academics don't spend their time running plagiarism checks (or editing Wikipedia for that matter). My experience is that academics identify plagiarism because they 1) know the literature and 2) know their students (and thus spot language that doesn't sound like their own).

[BelovedFox]

So the real question to be answered here is who did Rlevse piss off so badly that his Cabal shield was punctured? Normally if a Cabalista were to be accused of plagiarism, the shield would have protected them, usually by finding some way to dismiss the accuser as a crank/troll/sockpuppet/meatpuppet/etc. The fact that Rlevse was not protected suggests that he had lost favor.

Virtually everyone on Wikipedia can be accused of some sort of violation of the rules or another, because the rules are so antinomic; avoiding the consequences of such accusations is almost entirely a factor of who your friends and enemies are.

Not so sure about this. There's a lot of pride here.

Those at the core of the FA process have put a lot of time into it, and are often among Wikipedia's most educated, and most creative writers. They have a status as an elite - and when one of their own punctures that, they are not happy at all. Rightly so.

Many of them also have some academic experience, and in academia plagiarism is the biggest of cardinal sins. Anyone who has marked essays will pride themselves on spotting plagiarism - because failure to do so undermines both research and, indeed, education itself.

You can knock the FA process as claiming more than it can deliver. I am personally very critical of it. Its biggest problem is that it is simply too generalist to deliver. Reviewers, even good ones, seldom have any competency in the particular field they are reviewing, and (for other reasons) FA candidates tend to be quite specialist. I've gone through the process twice and my experience was that reviewers tended to focus on syntax and prose rather than content.

Plagiarism is actually fairly hard to spot. You have to access the sources and read them carefully, comparing them to the article. That's a long and laborious practice. It is also NOT how most plagiarism is spotted in academia. Most plagiarism is spotted because the subject specialist who is reviewing the work, or marking the essay, is already deeply familiar with literature in the field. So he tends to read something, think "that sounds familiar" and go checking. Either that, or he's scrutinising the work of one particular individual because he's already suspicious about their standards.

Ultimately the strength and weakness of the FA is that it requires the writers to be competent. I'm somewhat embarrassed by my old FAs that I childishly considered "fine", and work on improving them when I have time. I'm certain that some of my old writing probably contained some plagiarism as well; in that case, the fact that I've stayed away from the articles helps in rewriting and cleaning up those issues.

Since then, the quality of my writing has increased, and my own standards for what I submit to FA has also risen. Many of the well-regarded FA writers follow similar practices of "it's ready when I feel like I've given it my all", and those aren't the articles we have to worry about; for their unwitting missteps and lack of coverage in an area or whatever problems, they're still solid and among the best Wikipedia (and the internet) can offer.

Many of them also have some academic experience, and in academia plagiarism is the biggest of cardinal sins.

Besides me, who else has academic experience and cared about plagiarism?

I was the only one doing the plagiarism checks for a year and some and when I was booted no one bothered to step up.


By the way, plagiarism is easy to spot - look for a word that seems to "stylish", "fancy", or whatever. If the writing seems too good, check it. I was able to review over 250 articles at FAC for plagiarism without a problem.

Yes, occasionally you have a "gotcha" moment when the tone and diction dramatically shifts that's an indication, but frankly I've only seen that in the papers of students and idiots. Not to say Wikipedia doesn't have it's fill of both, but the more subtle and hence malicious types of plagiarism are often using more common language anyhow. News writers don't fancy themselves wordsmiths like novelists do. You're going to have a much easier time getting away with grabbing text from CNN than from Dickens.

[Ottava]

Many of them also have some academic experience, and in academia plagiarism is the biggest of cardinal sins.

Besides me, who else has academic experience and cared about plagiarism?

I was the only one doing the plagiarism checks for a year and some and when I was booted no one bothered to step up.


By the way, plagiarism is easy to spot - look for a word that seems to "stylish", "fancy", or whatever. If the writing seems too good, check it. I was able to review over 250 articles at FAC for plagiarism without a problem.

I suspect many involved in the FA process do have some academic or research experience. But real professional academics don't spend their time running plagiarism checks (or editing Wikipedia for that matter). My experience is that academics identify plagiarism because they 1) know the literature and 2) know their students (and thus spot language that doesn't sound like their own).

You do know that most "real academics" teach and have to check for plagiarism in papers, right? I've done quite a lot of work with professors checking essays and papers for it.

Plagiarism can sound like "their own" in such papers because many of them just copy Wikipedia's crappy entries (rarely do they steal from the good ones).

[powercorrupts]

they appear to be semi-officious

They appear to me to be completely and 100% officious on Webster's definition ("volunteering one's services where they are neither asked nor needed: meddlesome"). In fact, a large proportion of what Rlevse has been doing for months, if not years, may be described as officious. That's how you get to be on ArbCom. If you mean semi-official, then yes, anything from an ArbCom member necessarily has a certain aura of officialdom attached to it, even if it isn't intended. (Not that it's unintended in his case.)

I was talking about the Awesome Wikipedian Days he awards people to give various positions he agrees with a lift. Try quoting the first half of the sentence too - it's a good discipline in places like this!

TenOfAllTrades was a constant trolling presence during the already-difficult Community DeAdminship development, and outrageously hijacked its poll at the eventually-hurried RfC with an 'introductory' attack that was somehow projected from his user space, so no one could edit it in any way. TenofAll was clearly chosen to be as threatening as he could be throughout, and he did his job with real froth - though miraculously he got no one blocked. Rlevse awarding him his very own 'Awesome Wikipedian Day' during the poll was basically an act of Caligulan spite towards the many voters who were simply trying to make admin accountable in some way. CDA was a truly unpleasant experience, but Christ what can you say: that's Wikipedia. Always as messy as they can make it.

Good riddance to Rlevse, if he's really gone - it's not the only time he's abused the so-callled 'barnstar' for political purposes. These fucked-up Romans genuinely think they are above the underclass who slave away beneath them. Why shed any tears when they stab each other in their backs?

Awesome Wikipedian Day!

User:ILikeYourStance has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian
and therefore, I've officially declared today as ILikeYourStance Day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear ILikeYourStance!

Peace,
Rlevse

Yet more decadent cybersex from the toga-wearing Admen of Planet Alpha. When will this bizarre race stop pleasuring and preening each other on the encyclopedia that is supposed to be for everyone?

[Doc glasgow]

Many of them also have some academic experience, and in academia plagiarism is the biggest of cardinal sins.

Besides me, who else has academic experience and cared about plagiarism?

I was the only one doing the plagiarism checks for a year and some and when I was booted no one bothered to step up.


By the way, plagiarism is easy to spot - look for a word that seems to "stylish", "fancy", or whatever. If the writing seems too good, check it. I was able to review over 250 articles at FAC for plagiarism without a problem.

I suspect many involved in the FA process do have some academic or research experience. But real professional academics don't spend their time running plagiarism checks (or editing Wikipedia for that matter). My experience is that academics identify plagiarism because they 1) know the literature and 2) know their students (and thus spot language that doesn't sound like their own).

You do know that most "real academics" teach and have to check for plagiarism in papers, right? I've done quite a lot of work with professors checking essays and papers for it.

Plagiarism can sound like "their own" in such papers because many of them just copy Wikipedia's crappy entries (rarely do they steal from the good ones).

I've taught at a University. We were certainly alert to Plagiarism - but the checking came from knowing the sources well, and investigating if suspicious. It did not come from any process independent of that.

The problem is that what academics do to screen for plagiarism cannot be done on Wikipedia, because (on the whole) the people marking the essays are not subject experts. That#s the root of the problem.

I suppose one could check something for plagiarism by reading all the sources and becoming familiar with them, but that really is asking more than is realistic.

[BelovedFox]

they appear to be semi-officious

They appear to me to be completely and 100% officious on Webster's definition ("volunteering one's services where they are neither asked nor needed: meddlesome"). In fact, a large proportion of what Rlevse has been doing for months, if not years, may be described as officious. That's how you get to be on ArbCom. If you mean semi-official, then yes, anything from an ArbCom member necessarily has a certain aura of officialdom attached to it, even if it isn't intended. (Not that it's unintended in his case.)

I was talking about the Awesome Wikipedian Days he awards people to give various positions he agrees with a lift. Try quoting the first half of the sentence too - it's a good discipline in places like this!

TenOfAllTrades was a constant trolling presence during the already-difficult Community DeAdminship development, and outrageously hijacked its poll at the eventually-hurried RfC with an 'introductory' attack that was somehow projected from his user space, so no one could edit it in any way. TenofAll was clearly chosen to be as threatening as he could be throughout, and he did his job with real froth - though miraculously he got no one blocked. Rlevse awarding him his very own 'Awesome Wikipedian Day' during the poll was basically an act of Caligulan spite towards the many voters who were simply trying to make admin accountable in some way. CDA was a truly unpleasant experience, but Christ what can you say: that's Wikipedia. Always as messy as they can make it.

Good riddance to Rlevse, if he's really gone - it's not the only time he's abused the so-callled 'barnstar' for political purposes. These fucked-up Romans genuinely think they are above the underclass who slave away beneath them. Why shed any tears when they stab each other in their backs?

Awesome Wikipedian Day!

User:ILikeYourStance has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian
and therefore, I've officially declared today as ILikeYourStance Day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear ILikeYourStance!

Peace,
Rlevse

Yet more decadent cybersex from the toga-wearing Admen of Planet Alpha. When will this bizarre race stop pleasuring and preening each other on the encyclopedia that is supposed to be for everyone?

I've got my own Awesome Wikipedian day, but I'm at a loss as to when Rlevse ever had a meaningful interaction, indirect or no.