In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 09:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC).
- CarolSpears (talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute edit
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
Desired outcome edit
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. This RfC is a followup to a thread at the ANI link where it was recommended that, because the evidence is complex, an RfC might be a better way forward. The purpose of this RfC is to:
- Document the copyright violation problem caused by cut-and-paste creation of botanical articles
- Organise efforts to repair this problem
- Find a solution to prevent further disruption by copyright violations in future.
Description edit
User:CarolSpears has violated copyright on numerous articles. While she does document sources, entire sentences or paragraphs are quoted verbatim, or near-verbatim. Agrostis gigantea (now deleted and replaced with a stub) was the worst article in this respect. While there was probably no intent to deceive, CarolSpears' reaction to the problem coming to light has been very poor, and it is uncertain whether she understands that there is a problem.
Evidence of disputed behavior edit
This evidence compares three paragraphs from Agrostis gigantea to CarolSpears' sources. This article was deleted as a copyvio, so the version in the current Google cache is used instead. Bold is used to point out exact similarities between the sources.
Basic summary: Entire paragraphs and sections of the article are copy-pasted, without any real changes, or, in the case of the section "Foodplant", no changes whatsoever.
| Carol Spears's Wikipedia version | http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/agrgig/all.html |
| Redtop regenerates vegetatively and by seed. Germination rates are high, generally 85 percent or greater. No pretreatment is necessary but light is required for germination. Redtop seeds are long-lived and accumulate in a seedbank. Germination was 91 percent after 6 years of storage and 50 percent after 20 years of storage in an uncontrolled environment. | Redtop regenerates vegetatively and by seed. Germination rates are high, generally 85 percent or greater [20,61]. No pretreatment is necessary but light is required for germination [20]. Redtop seeds are long-lived and accumulate in a seedbank [6,38]. Germination was 91 percent after 6 years of storage [61] and 50 percent after 20 years of storage in an uncontrolled environment [32]. |
As can be seen, the only change between the paragraph CarolSpears used in her Wikipedia article, and that of the source is that the references to footnotes have been stripped
Let's now look at the section "Foodplant". This section has one paragraph, and the whole paragraph is an exact copy-paste, without even the trivial changes seen above.
| Carol Spears's Wikipedia version | http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/grasses/plants/redtop.htm |
| The wind-pollinated flowers attract few insects. The caterpillars of several skippers feed on the foliage of Redtop, including Amblyscirtes vialis (Common Roadside Skipper), Hesperia leonardus (Leonard's Skipper), Hylephila phyleus (Fiery Skipper), and the introduced Thymelicus lineola (European Skipper). The caterpillars of the moth Leucania pseudargyria (False Wainscot) feed on Agrostis spp. (Bentgrasses). The seeds are eaten by the Field Sparrow to a limited extent, while the Cottontail rabbit occasionally browses on the foliage. Redtop is quite palatable to livestock. | The wind-pollinated flowers attract few insects. The caterpillars of several skippers feed on the foliage of Redtop, including Amblyscirtes vialis (Common Roadside Skipper), Hesperia leonardus (Leonard's Skipper), Hylephila phyleus (Fiery Skipper), and the introduced Thymelicus lineola (European Skipper). The caterpillars of the moth Leucania pseudargyria (False Wainscot) feed on Agrostis spp. (Bentgrasses). The seeds are eaten by the Field Sparrow to a limited extent, while the Cottontail Rabbit occasionally browses on the foliage. Redtop is quite palatable to livestock. |
Finally, the section Distribution. This section is made by combining sentences from both of the sources alternatively.
| Carol Spears's Wikipedia version | http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/grasses/plants/redtop.htm | http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/graminoid/agrgig/all.html |
| Redtop, native to Europe, has been introduced throughout temperate North America as a pasture grass. It occurs from Newfoundland south to the mountains of northern Georgia and Alabama, west to California, and north to Alaska. | Redtop, native to Europe, has been introduced throughout temperate North America as a pasture grass. It occurs from Newfoundland south to the mountains of northern Georgia and Alabama, west to California, and north to Alaska. | |
| The preference is full sun, moist to mesic conditions, and a loam or clay-loam soil. This grass adapts well to worn-out soil in agricultural fields. | The preference is full sun, moist to mesic conditions, and a loam or clay-loam soil. This grass adapts well to worn-out soil in agricultural fields. | |
| It is apparently uncommon or absent from the warm, humid regions of the Gulf Coast and from the desert regions of the Southwest | It is apparently uncommon or absent from the warm, humid regions of the Gulf Coast and from the desert regions of the Southwest | |
| It has a circumpolar distribution, occurring as a now native grass in both North America and Eurasia. | It has a circumpolar distribution, occurring as a native grass in both North America and Eurasia. |
As can be seen, the only change is the addition of one word in the last sentence.
Agrostis gigantea is the worst of the articles that I am aware of - you could easily go through the entire article and find more plagiarism at or near that level. However, the plagiarism was not isolated to just that article, and full details of the rest of the known plagiarism by CarolSpears can be found at /Evidence
Applicable policies and guidelines edit
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute edit
(provide diffs and links)
- Wikipedia:ANI#Copyright_violations_by_CarolSpears_on_Main_page (This should be replaced by an archive link when it is)
- My attempt
- Carcharoth
- SBJohnny, also [1]
- Mayalld, also [2]
- LessHeardvanU
This is a sample, see User talk:CarolSpears for a full list.
Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute edit
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
- Edit wars to keep her (copyright infringing) version of the article. Note the edit summary of the first: "if you cannot fix it yourself, you should be able to wait until there is a lawsuit or until the abled people can get to it" [3] [4] She was blocked by Ryan Postlethwaite over this. [5] See also [6] and [7].
- Various statements saying that she should not be held to WP:COPYVIO, e.g. [8] [9] A few highlights:
- Etc. see the ANI thead and her talk page for more.
Users certifying the basis for this dispute edit
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
- Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- DurovaCharge! 00:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Other users who endorse this summary edit
Response edit
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Outside view edit
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Discussion edit
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.