If any of you have been following my Talk page, you know that Will Beback has been going ape shit to get at the identification of my paid editing articles in Wikipedia. He has insisted that they are evidence of plagiarism and failure to abide by the terms of the GFDL.

If any of you have been following my Talk page, you know that Will Beback has been going ape shit to get at the identification of my paid editing articles in Wikipedia. He has insisted that they are evidence of plagiarism and failure to abide by the terms of the GFDL.

Well, Will demanded that I notify him of any future examples of unattributed plagiarism, so he gets one. Sometimes, it's just too easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Greg

The GFDL was specially modified a while back (version 1.3) so that all content on a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" licensed under "Version 1.2 or any later version" prior to August 2009 can be auto-magically converted to CC-BY-SA. As long as Wikipedia Review changes licenses by that time, there shouldn't be any licensing problems. (Not to mention if the content was solely by one author - i.e. Greg - that author is free to do whatever they want with said content.)

On the other hand, CC-BY-SA still requires some form of attribution "in the manner specified by the author or licensor"; the Arch Coal incident being an exemplary violation of this.

I can't imagine an organization that would have the nerve to change the licenses of other people's content, without their express permission.

I wouldn't ever dare to speak for the nearly 2,000 editors of Wikipedia Review content, to do a license swap without consent of each and every one of them. I can't imagine an organization that would have the nerve to change the licenses of other people's content, without their express permission.

I wouldn't ever dare to speak for the nearly 2,000 editors of Wikipedia Review content, to do a license swap without consent of each and every one of them. I can't imagine an organization that would have the nerve to change the licenses of other people's content, without their express permission.

Man, do you know what I hate? When I make a reasonably clever joke reliant on feigned ignorance that's actually an unspoken allusion to something else, on the assumption that the audience will catch the allusion, and instead they mistake my feigned ignorance for genuine ignorance and explicitly bring up the thing to which I'm alluding.

That always pisses me off. Just thought I'd mention it.

B. List on the Title Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified Version, together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of its principal authors, if it has fewer than five), unless they release you from this requirement.

I participated in a discussion about content created by Thekohser during or prior to his ban (a thread started by an ArbCom member), and he was very adversarial. He demanded a list of articles that I had created, and then followed that list to tag one of the pages of which I was the sole contributor (a subpage which was mistakenly in mainspace)[123] and argued that I was guilty of plagiarism when I split another article.[124] He kept insisting that I act on some obscure issue from 18 months ago.[125] He was required by the ArbCom to list all of this socks accounts, and he omitted an IP that he'd used repeatedly to circumvent his ban. When I reminded him of it he left a bad faith comment.[126] In addition, he's made remarks that are borderline uncivil. He seems to be operating with a large chip on his shoulder. I don't think any enforcement is needed, but he should make sure he really wants to be here and is willing to behave in line with community norms and the ArbCom's conditions. Will Beback

This controversy is still smoldering:

That's the revenge factor on Wikipedia, of course. Any past affront can be dug up and rubbed in the face of the perpetrator. Thing is, I could just as easily change Will's word "participated in a discussion" to "injected myself into a discussion that was not my business nor area of expertise", and my interpretation would be more accurate.

The guy cannot point to a single decent article that he's ever created from scratch. What does that tell you?

...He kept insisting that I act on some obscure issue from 18 months ago. 125...

We now look forward to your review of the plagiarism cited above that took place on January 2, 2008, as well as your participation in the public review of the articles I have provided above...

The actual wording in the diff provided is as follows:

That's not "insisting," is it?

The "obscure issue" was, of course, JzG's infamous lifting of the Arch Coal (T-H-L-K-D) article, which was covered extensively here - I wouldn't call it obscure, personally, and I know there are plenty of folks on WP who remember it, but to each his own, I suppose.

What does Will Beback think he's trying to protect, anyway? I've never understood his motivations, unless I just give up and assume he's completely psychotic.

I'll give Will this -- he's got that same talent as I do for "re-framing" issues so that his opposition sounds deranged, while making him sound like an innocent victim.

I've asked the Wikipediots who are hell-bent on finding my paid articles to first give a public review of the "example" articles that are written in about the same style and level as my other paid work... but they refuse to budge beyond Iridescent's one effort at reviewing The Family & Workplace Connection.

Maybe they refuse to do unpaid work that might profit someone else?