Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:50, 5 November 2010

Who wanted this?

DYK for Ferry Plantation House

On 31 October 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ferry Plantation House, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

JJ

 Chzz  ►  18:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't Retire!

Aww, don't retire, I was just getting to know you. You're one of the best Wikipedians here. Don't take these little things to heart. You have to come back. Hope to hear from you soon. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 275° 36' 14" NET 18:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Posted at the request of Rlevse

Rlevse contacted me via email to ask me to post this:

Rlevse has turned in his advanced user permissions (CU/OS, ArbCom, etcetera), and has scrambled his passwords. - SirFozzie (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm this as well as I have spoken to Rlevse. I think we should all give him some breathing room for awhile. People can come back after a long period of time, but I feel that Rlevse needs to have some room to breathe and spend sometime with WP:REALLIFE for awhile before coming back. I can bet he appreciates all the comments that are being posted, but let's let him be for the time being. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

True, but if he's scrambled his passwords, he's never coming back. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 288° 8' 45" NET 19:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not clear at all. A lot of people have had contact with him through other channels than Misplaced Pages, and I am sure he can get his account back if he wants it, very likely with the admin bit. But I am also sure that starting again without any of the honours he has received from Misplaced Pages (and no doubt deserved) can be liberating. Hans Adler 19:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point! I forgot the email new password link. Either way it'll be great to see Rlevse back again! Set Sail For The Seven Seas 291° 43' 45" NET 19:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I would have to admit that coming back under a different name would probably be extremely liberating to a lot of us. And he wouldn't be the first one to come back under a different name even after having been granted adminship. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, he wouldn't... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Several people including myself came back under new accounts after purging the password and disabling email, as long as email is still fuctioning, as it seems like it is, you could still edit from this account. Secret 02:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I was planning on coming back under a different name and editing lots of new articles. I would never have tried to circumvent any restrictions I just wanted a fresh start but checkusers started hammering with their banhammers, this pulled me back into the same old rut. At least Rlevse does not have these issues. Polargeo 2 (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Good luck

Hi Rlevse. Sorry to see it's turned out this way. Good luck in life, it'd always be nice to see you back. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rlevse, I feel the same. So the last of many things you did for me was placing a Bach-cantata among the Halloween hooks for DYK. I miss you, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rlevse, I didn't know you well, but I have long noticed and appreciated all the selfless effort and hard work that you have put into Misplaced Pages, especially DYK, and hope that you'll be able to come back some day. I'm proud to count myself as one of the last wikipedians to have been honoured by you with a day of my own -- you truly are an Awesome Wikipedian. BabelStone (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope this turns out to be a (well earned) break, and not permanent. Regardless of things coming up, it's always been clear that you cared for the project and were one of the good guys.

I would support your getting any and all of the bits back if you return and want to come back to those activities. Trust in your judgement has never been an issue.

Take whatever time you need or want, see if you still think Misplaced Pages's something you want to help with, come back either as yourself or a new start if you want to keep going afterwards. In the meantime, I hope life out there is good to you.

Roux also sends along his positive regards and a hope that you'll be back as well.

Take care. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with GWH on all points. John Carter (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You will be missed. I appreciate your thoughtfulness and insight over the years. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there are a lot of sentiments I could echo. This one is but one of the most appropriate ones. Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man says it all. --Orlady (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Damn. Take a month-off around Chiang Mai, then get back back at it. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought

I won't suggest that I have even the beginning of an inkling of a clue as to what has gone on, but regardless of this straw that seemingly broke the camel's back, I think (as someone who has watched similar repeated things over and over with arbcom members) that a bit of stress and/or frustration in one place (like arbcom), can bleed over to others. It's a mostly thankless job, where, often for being conscientious or trying to "do the right thing", one finds themselves burned in effigy (and sometimes not even in effigy). It's unfair and I wish it was some other way.

My sincere hope is that this retirement eventually turns into a wikibreak, and that we'll see you soon.

Regardless, I wish you well. - jc37 19:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. You are thought of fondly and will be welcomed back should you choose to return. With best wishes, -- Black Falcon 23:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a good point that many things in Misplaced Pages can become excessively stressful. We can all make mistakes and it really shouldn't be such a big deal, especially in an area where it's a question of degree or of differing views. Hope this is a helpful wikibreak for you, look forward in hope to your future contributions. . dave souza, talk 23:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Take it easy, it shows you have opinions unlike others who are always placid and coldly hat collecting and doing the bare mininum to trick the customers YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm in constant email coversation with Rlevse, I don't think he's coming back unfortunaly, he's clearly upset about this situation. Secret 23:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that. The issue which caused this brouhaha is itself one of the less well-defined matters here. Secret, if you can contact Rlevse, please let him know that, if nothing else, if the issue at hand does become the focus of some considerable attention with the intention of addressing the problem, as I hope it does very soon, I think his input in some form would be very much welcome. John Carter (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad that you found a job for R. to do on his return, John. I really hope he takes you up on your offer. I counted R. among my friends on wiki. My purpose in writing this is to wish him the best on whatever he chooses to do. R., thank you for your help and kindness on so many occasions. I hope you return. Take care and my best wishes to you. Dr.K.  00:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Re John. Rlevse is looking at all the comments, including his talk page, AN/I and all the subpages, with all the drama that was caused from this. Secret 17:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

And maybe a hint for a wider perspective:

I'm confused, what perspective exactly is he hoping Wikipedians will take? He manufactured articles at an amazing rate of knotts, obtained numerous admirers as a result and now it seems his secret of speedy writing has been solved. He allowed shit to be thrown at others for discovering the depths of his copy violations and now he wants a wider perspective - I bet he does.  Giacomo  18:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Giano, I hope you are not looking for an answer from me for the perspective of Wikipedians regarding R. on this convoluted and convulsive affair. It is simply not my department to speak on their behalf. I only suggested this to R. as personal advice that he should not take this incident too heavily and that there are other things and places in life, beautiful and uplifting, which could change the bleak perspective of the local affair. I gave him a nice example of such a place and I went on my way. R. never indicated that he wanted a wider perspective either. So I think that your comment that R. wants a wider perspective is off the mark. He never said that he did. Also R. helped me in the past, ironically for the same type of faux-pas as you made today. Editing while logged-out. He was a friend, and I tried to help him in an hour of need. I know that you don't want to turn this gesture into football. Political ot otherwise. I also know that you have the elegance to understand that when someone is gone, to let them be gone. It serves no purpose to criticise them personally for their faults. We can learn from their faults so as not to repeat them but let them go in peace. Dr.K.  19:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Dr K, much as I respect you, no, I don't know and I do not have "the elegance to understand that when someone is gone, to let them be gone", it is my dearest wish to have Geogre restored to us, an editor driven off by such arbs as RLevse.  Giacomo  19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The respect is mutual Giano. This has never been an issue. I am sorry if I was a little presumptuous to actually predict your behaviour by saying that "I know" how you would react. Normally, you would be right, I shouldn't be able to know how you would react. But I'm glad that I have to explain why I said it. I saw your defence of Mick during his last indef block and I also followed the eloquent arguments you made on his behalf to Scott. I was impressed. You acted as a statesman who eloquently, elegantly and effectively argued for due process and basic rights for the downtrodden. Even on behalf of an editor who bitterly opposed you. Remember the last ANI report that Mick brought against you? Now don't tell me that I don't know if you can take the high ground with respect to your opponents, especially when they are down. I know that you can and do. Dr.K.  20:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I shall not be posting here further, but you are mistaken, there is no high ground to take here. The case is quite clear and cut, there is no justification.  Giacomo  20:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that I analysed the situation I agree that I was mistaken. I replied on your talk. Dr.K.  22:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll be missed

I'm not sure who wanted it but, whatever has gone on, I assure you there are many editors who hope things resolve themselved. You have astounded me more than any other editor in going from rant to resourcefulness. I would love for that to happen again or even just for you to return to the amazing job you already (people do appreciate it even if it doesn't always feel that way). If that cannot be so then I wish you well in whatever you do and lots of luck for the future. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Rlevse, no matter what's gone on elsewhere, I've always enjoyed collaborating with you on your articles. I hope you treat this as a much-needed WikiBreak (we all need them every so often) rather than a permanent break. We all make mistakes in some form or the other, and I don't think anybody was looking to boot you because of this one. All the best, and hope to see you back soon, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow I'm in shock, I had two shocks at work the last couple of days, and now this in Misplaced Pages. I hope you do come back, and if you don't, thanks for all your hard work in this project. Secret 02:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe it. One of our most respected users, gone :( you'll be missed, I echo the words of Secret and Dabomb87. Your work was well appreciated, I don't think that anyone wanted you to leave. Misplaced Pages now has lost another one. I do hope you come back. Take care and godspeed I hope whatever you're doing now it has to be better than what you had to experience here :( Warmest regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:42pm • 10:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Y'll be back, ande, the sooner the better! Lotje (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You are missed. The last of my DYKs you dealt with, Piccolo Quintet, will be on this afternoon, at the same time I will be at the funeral of a friend. You wrote Ach so, when I explained, and I would like to continue that conversation. Who will ask now considerately if I really wanted a Bach cantata among the Halloween hooks? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. Any minor plagiarism issues certainly don't outweigh the shining example you've been to the project. You've been a crucial member of the DYK project and have done a magnificent job in posting DYKs. I really do wish the "community" would stop causing these "scandals" and making a big deal about everything. The community seems to have extreme perspectives that every editor, especially an admin or bureacrat should be functioning at a superhuman level and never show a human emotion or show any flaw whatsoever, however small. At times I've been exasperated at this lack of understanding that people are human and are subject to losing their temper or making the occasional error/creating a minor problem. I'd wager that every wikipedian who has written an encyclopedia article at some point has written text which could be argued to be plagiarism. When you are writing articles using the information from given sources it is is inevitable that this will occur from time to time. Sigh another good editor forced out..Please return, even if under a different identity. You are too valuable to be ousted over a few issues like this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, Rlevse. You made DYK a great place to work in. StrPby (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no. No, no, no. I'm so sorry to see you go - you're such a valuable contributor. I do hope you return; we will be much the poorer for your absence. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Just want to echo all of the above, you were a valuable Wikipedian and will be missed. Someday in the future I hope to be adding a welcome message and barnstar to a promising new editor that reminds me a lot of you. <wink wink nudge nudge> -- œ 14:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 October newsletter

The 2010 WikiCup is over! It has been a long journey, but what has been achieved is impressive: combined, participants have produced over seventy featured articles, over five hundred good articles, over fifty featured lists, over one thousand one hundred "did you know" entries, in addition to various other pieces of recognised content. A full list (which has yet to be updated to reflect the scores in the final round) can be found here. Perhaps more importantly, we have our winner! The 2010 WikiCup champion is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), with an unbelievable 4220 points in the final round. Second place goes to TonyTheTiger (submissions), with 2260, and third to Casliber (submissions), with 560. Congratulations to our other four finalists – White Shadows (submissions), William S. Saturn (submissions), Staxringold (submissions) and ThinkBlue (submissions). Also, congratulations to Sasata (submissions), who withdrew from the competition with an impressive 2685 points earlier in this round.

Prizes will also be going to those who claimed the most points for different types of content in a single round. It was decided that the prizes would be awarded for those with the highest in a round, rather than overall, so that the finalists did not have an unfair advantage. Winning the featured article prize is Casliber (submissions), for five featured articles in round 4. Winning the good article prize is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for eighty-one good articles in round 5. Winning the featured list prize is Staxringold (submissions), for six featured lists in round 1. Winning the picture and sound award is Jujutacular (submissions), for four featured pictures in round 3. Winning the topic award is Sturmvogel_66 (submissions), for forty-seven articles in various good topics in round 5. Winning the "did you know" award is TonyTheTiger (submissions), for over one hundred did you knows is round 5. Finally, winning the in the news award is Candlewicke (submissions), for nineteen articles in the news in round three.

The WikiCup has faced criticism in the last month – hopefully, we will take something positive from it and create a better contest for next year. Like Misplaced Pages itself, the Cup is a work in progress, and ideas for how it should work are more than welcome on the WikiCup talk page and on the scoring talk page. Also, people are more than welcome to sign up for next year's competition on the signup page. Well done and thank you to everyone involved – the Cup has been a pleasure to run, and we, as judges, have been proud to be a part of it. We hope that next year, however the Cup is working, and whoever is running it, it will be back, stronger and more popular than ever. Until then, goodbye and happy editing! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 03:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation

		The WikiCup 2010 Ribbon of Participation
		Awarded to Rlevse, for participation in the 2010 WikiCup. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 08:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

WTF please?

Ridiculous. I don't care how long you're gone, but if you don't come back, a lot of the project has died. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, I may not have known you well but looking at the work you've done over the years I don't think we care what mistakes you made, you were kind and helpful to new participants at DYK. You certainly helped me get my wings there :) as I'm sure you did, many others. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:14am • 23:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

did I like miss something?--White Shadows 03:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I want to second White Shadows' question. Seriously, wtf happened that this great contributor decided to quit? Oo Regards SoWhy 10:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

He was caught plagiarising a featured article. Everyone makes mistakes, but his rude and dismissive attitude about it was completely out of order for an arbitrator, let alone an admin and bureaucrat. Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page may be enlightening. Aiken (talk) 11:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh crap. Sorry to see you go Rlevse. We've missed one of the best editors of this project. Luck in your future projects! Diego Grez (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Silver Knapsack Trail

On 2 November 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Silver Knapsack Trail, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

-- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Woah

He's gone guys, leave well enough alone. There is no need to speak of someone in such a rude manner, sure he was an arb, admin and crat, that doesn't mean he, like the rest of us, isn't prone to making mistakes and what he did was on a fairly small scale compared to other incidents in relation to copyright. Those that did want him to leave, I hope you're happy, you just managed to get one of Misplaced Pages's finest contributors to just pack his bags and leave. If you're going to be rude and insulting, just ask yourself if you were in his position, what you would have done. Frankly, speaking as though all he'd ever done was plagiarise is just disgusting and bringing his positions into this situation is more than just disgusting. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:16pm • 08:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Concur. He's not perfect (who is?), but his contribution to the project was overwhelming positive and his departure a significant net loss. I share the copyvio concerns, but I don't agree with the vindictive and take-no-prisoners manner in which they have been taken up, even if he was an uber-Admin. Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that Rlevse did a lot of great things for this project and contributed vast amounts of his time to make it better. We should all be grateful. However, there's also a problem that shouldn't be shoved under the rug. I don't see where anyone has been rude.   Will Beback  talk  08:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we'll he obviously isn't around anymore and maybe this was part of the reason. He gave up his tools and what is done is done, he isn't hanging around and trying to save face in this situation. There is no reason to continue being astounded on his talk page. Leaders, who are human, do fall. Nevertheless, there is more good to say about someone who volunteered and devoted a lot of time to the project. I enjoyed working at DYK with him and looked-up to his demeanor and work ethic. Lets remember the good, learn a lesson and move on.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know the man, aside from once leaving a message on this page. But from what I observed, he exemplified the work ethic and the collegiality you mention. I take away from that something else entirely: anyone who cared as deeply for this project as he did, in my estimation, would want the mistake he made (and which, unfortunately, he will be in part remembered for) to be the reason behind changing the system so that it doesn't happen again. Intrinsic to the nature of wikipedia is the idea that the knowledge contained herein is got in an honest and straightforward way. In this instance, that did not happen. If by Rlevse's mistake we can learn a lesson, and put into effect changes that prevent its repetition, then he will have aided the project once again, however inadvertently. In the end, I believe that represents the way he felt about wikipedia: putting the aims of the project ahead of the sometimes selfish and sometimes flawed methods of a single individual -- in this case, himself. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't make this permanent

I would hope that even the most vociferous of your critics would prefer that you continued but with future edits in line with that policy, rather than leaving the project. I suspect that in the future you would rather be "Rlevse who had this hiccup in his wiki career but had the most successful RFA of 2011", and not "Rlevse who left in 2010 on this note". By all means take a break, but please don't let this be the end. ϢereSpielChequers 12:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please please come back. North8000 (talk) 10:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. As one you honored with a day, I can say that even if you had not done this, I would feel the same way. Take a break, even a really long one, but an error in judgement is just that. Others have done worse and been forgiven. Whatever happens, best wishes to you and yours, always. Jusdafax 00:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse’s parting statement

Wiki is horrible at educating editors. It has always expected people to know all the rules and to keep up with all the changes. This is impossible, even for dedicated long-tenured users. Given this and the way it's headed with the rules and all, many have and will stop producing content.

As I've said, if you don't source well, you get OR and cite needed tags, but if you source too closely, you get what happened to me. I never intended to do anything wrong. I had everything reffed; to the point that I had so many sources people told me remove some. To me that's attribution, but I guess to some it isn't. This isn't an excuse, I accept what I did, I goofed.

My goof was in not knowing where the swinging pendulum of "ref everything well but don't copy" pendulum was at. I've seen some other editors also mention this and how hard it is.

I grew up on wiki with "everything is okay as long as you have a valid RS for it" training--because if you don't you get cite needed tags. I never knew the pendulum was swinging back further away from that, more to the "don't closely paraphrase" school.

So I goofed here but my heart is with the project. However, wiki is its own worst enemy, it allows anyone to edit and has poor ineffective mechanisms for dealing with problem editors--this particular problem is essentially unsolvable. Shoot, I asked many people for help because I know I’m not good at writing, so why didn't Grace Sherwood get more closely checked until after it was on the Main Page? This points up the systemic problems so many have discussed.

I'm deeply sorry I've brought these problems to wiki and ArbCom. As stupid as it may sound, I thought I was in full compliance with policies. I know many will never believe that, but it's true, so you can call me stupid, but not legitimately claim I had ill intent of any sort.

I'm glad to have known many fine editors and upstanding people that I’ve encountered during my wiki career. Too bad my 5 years have now been overshadowed by this.

Rlevse

(posted by request by SirFozzie (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC))

Parting Statement

It's not the end of the world Rlevse! You're forgiven! Now come back already! -- œ 22:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

"Overshadowed" in only a few minds and hopefully not yours. Please come back! North8000 (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with North. Take a break and come back. You can get over this problem. Start perhaps by only working on Scouting pages. We really miss you there. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• This is a truly amazing statement - did you write it entirely yourself? I hope not because it's full of stomach churning cliche and sentimentality designed to elicit sympathy. "I know I’m not good at writing, so why didn't Grace Sherwood get more closely checked until after it was on the Main Page?" it's a little late in the day to discover that, after one has been writing an encyclopedia for years and been elected to its highest committee. Why should other people have to check up on you, an Arb? You're supposed to know what you are doing. Ill intent or not is not a consideration the consequences of your actions are all that are to be considered. That the other Arbs seem strangely silent on your conduct is in it's way as worrying as your writing. Some are saying one should not persecute you, now that you are gone - and I would agree with that, but at the moment there seems to be indecision on whether your actions were right or wrong - that confusion is dangerous. For the sake of the project and setting an example, it needs to be firmly condemned by the highest authority - the current attitude of ignoring or at worst: Rlevse made a silly little boo boo is not good enough.  Giacomo  22:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary post - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Giano, I think you are very wrong about this. We need Arbs who have the independence of mind to notice when the community is wrong about something, but there are simply not enough qualified candidates of that type. What we get instead is Arbs with relatively high social intelligence and a desire to be popular and go with the crowd.

  Our policies become more and more radical over time. Verifiability is often interpreted in a fundamentalist way nowadays. Even editors who wikilawyer for libelling a living person through a "reliable source" that is generally known to be incorrect are not usually sanctioned, and the definition of "original research" is often expanded beyond all reasonable bounds. I can understand how an editor who lacks the common sense to see that this is just a temporary aberration and transient fashion can be misled by this. Rlevse may not have told the whole story (as there were two earlier Arbcom-related incidents this year which he must have heard about and which should really have made him recalibrate his compass), but I am sure that what he has told us was a key part of the story. Hans Adler 22:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's correct that serving on the ArbCom involves a different skill-set than writing encyclopedia articles. But one of the important skills that is necessary on the ArbCom is a deep familiarity with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Anyone on the committee who makes mistakes and then claims ignorance of those policies and guidelines should step down.

One thing some of us have learned is that when a problem comes to light, it is often just the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The plagiarism and original research issues with Rlevse's work didn't start with Grace Sherwood.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Try not to kick a chap when he's down. DuncanHill (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)}}

... and it's not just Rlevse. We need a lot more awareness of the problem in the community. Hans Adler 23:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What problems are those? Misplaced Pages has long been known to me to be one of those games you can't win if you actually play by the rules, since the rules are contradictory. An article actually written with no original thought showing at the writing level, would be such a patchwork of cites, quotes, and lack of segues, as to be unreadable. And even then, original throught and synthesis would still be hidden down at the level of what choices had been made of parts of other works to paste together. Good articles on WP get written by at least partly ignoring the NOR and SYN rules, just as in any encyclopedia. Many writers here know that, but few admit it, because it's official revelation from on high that THIS encyclopedia is different. Well, it's not. SBHarris 23:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That was my point. NOR and SYN were not originally meant to be enforced everywhere and at all times. They were meant as a an objective criterion for resolving genuine disputes. But then the editors who lost in such disputes got the message: Some of them decided to apply the same principles to totally uncontroversial questions to make a point by proving their absurdity. Others really began to believe that this is how Misplaced Pages works throughout and spread the word. Nowadays we have a number of editors going through the encyclopedia and enforcing principles such as "Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary", "words to avoid" or "verifiability" in situations where they have very little if any value. We have detailed wikilawyering discussions about whether a source is "reliable" or not, or whether it is primary, secondary or tertiary, while the most obvious signs that a claim in a source was never meant literally are being ignored. We have a significant proportion of editors who believe in the enforcement of abstract principles that started as approximations to common practice and somehow morphed into holy words without ever being adapted to their new role. Gavin.collins' radicalism w.r.t. OR (everything but a copyvio is automatically OR, and even patching together copyvios is OR unless you copy most of the source) is only an outlier, but he was made possible by the infatuation of the masses. I was surprised to see that an Arb was also caught by this misconception that the policies are more important than their purpose, but I should not have been. It was only a matter of time when this would happen. Hans Adler 10:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You two have hit the nail right on the head. As Misplaced Pages is aging / maturing, the rules multiply while still being written in a disjointed and conflicting manner, it is chasing away the best and encouraging the worst. This is caused by the fact that the rules as written, and if followed 100% say that 90% of Misplaced Pages is in violation with one or another of them. That tends to drive away the good people and enable the bad ones. Plus breed eternal turmoil and instability on all contentious articles. Courses set 5 years ago based on the conditions of the time now need to be tweaked. It CAN be fixed. The solution is simpler than one would think and harder to put in place than one would think. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Misplaced Pages:No original research is not properly understood - and occasinally used as a stick to beat other editors with. Original research is fine, so long as it's backed up by an original published source. It's OK to write the first ever biography of someone/something so long as the information therein in verifiable and the analysis and conclusions drawn are fair and balance. In my view, it's this misunderstanding of "No Original Research" has hampered the project more than anything else, it has encouraged plagiarism and certainly driven off many with a true understanding of a subject, who feel that vomitting out other people's facts is all that's permitted.  Giacomo  13:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that general discussion of Misplaced Pages-wide issues should best be taken to another page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• No, I don't think so, Arbs wrote the above statement and another one posted it. Rlevse is gone (we are told) what's the problem - why did Arbs write the statement and post here if they did not want a debate?  Giacomo  13:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Plus there really is no place in WP to hold a longer term broader discussion such as that. That is a part of the problem. "Gap" fillers can be in / come from unlikely places. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

However, wiki is its own worst enemy, it allows anyone to edit and has poor ineffective mechanisms for dealing with problem editors. Yup. It even elects some of the problem editors, ones who don't understand the beadrock research skills that go into writing an encyclopedia article, to be arbitrators. I mean really: A grown man who needs to be told what plagiarism is?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Most undergraduate students have no idea what constitutes plagiarism, even though it's quite relevant to many of them. I am not surprised that the situation at Misplaced Pages doesn't seem to be better. We must stop pretending it's not true and start addressing the problem. Hans Adler 14:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yourself and SBHarris expertly pointed out some issues that are broader than this particular one. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

But how to deal with the problem Hans? You know as well as i do that the mild suggestions at reform at DYK have already gotten bogged down (read: no meaningful change will take place) with the old expand/divert/attenuate tactic. Elsewhere there are people writing that plagiarism didn't occur, in the face of evidence proving, well, plagiarism, and a general tendency to stick their fingers in their ears. I agree that there is a broad problem. Arbcom can't fix it (doesn't appear to have people who understand the problem and probably couldn't even if it did). The community is driven by social networkers and apple polishers, not by people who understand research, so it seems an unlikely source of reform. So what then?Bali ultimate (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? We must import even more hairdressers and telephone sanitisers from Golgafrincham. They are our only hope, because they know how to set up an atmosphere that is conducive to encyclopedia writing. I have listed some more serious ideas at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page#Is plagiarism a problem?, and there is a somewhat related discussion under User talk:Hans Adler#Original research. Hans Adler 16:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)