NSWiki:Arbitration/Eurasia

I've received communications from both parties in this case, and I'd like to hear it in a bit more open of a forum, as I think the question of plagiarism should be discussed in such a way as to form a more uniform policy. There is very little documentation on the wiki about this case (which is poor form, in my opinion), and it's really hard for me to figure out what is going on without a thorough view of editing histories - I'll have time to do that in a couple days, but not now. Therefore, I'm opening this page for such a discussion. I'm not really concerned about formatting here, to be honest; just trying to figure out what's going on. --User:Goobergunch|? 07:59, 8 March 2007 (GMT)

Articles involved in this dispute: Eurasian Broadcasting Group, EBG World, Pacitalian Broadcasting Corporation, Pacitalian Transfer Status Level (Immigration), Eurasian Immigration Clearance Level

Statements and comments

I'd like to start off by thanking Goobergunch for allowing me to voice my concerns on the wiki itself, rather than having to make a big deal out of it elsewhere. Now, I will be more than willing to admit that I have made errors - who hasn't? All I want to protest is the fact that I was banned for an event that was never clearly defined, and I was banned for a rather trival offence. I apologise sincerely, once more, for circumnavigating the ban. I feel that Pacitalia, if he were to have blocked me, ought to have provided more warning. When I was blocked, I had no prior warning, and after talking to Pacitalia, I was even more confused. Had he just provided a simple example of this, I would have changed it forthwith and apologised. I humbly request that the ban be lifted. -- Eurasia 17:26, 8 March 2007 (GMT)

I will obviously counter by the fact that your alleged sincerity really has no value, since you blatantly chose to evade a two-week ban that you could have easily patiently waited out. Your assertion that you were not warned before a ban is completely false. In fact, you *were* warned previously over telegram on NS.net to watch how you copied content from other articles and, in a return message, asked me to point out how you could fix your articles to do so. I obliged without hesitation, even offering to talk to you on IM about the issue. I banned you, but still with quite a modest sentence, after seeing further evidence that you had not registered what I had said or taken it seriously. I will also counter your previous assertion that I only banned you because most of what you lifted came from my articles. I assure you that I've seen enough linkspam and vandalism to my articles, enough other copying from my stuff, that I couldn't care less whether it was my articles or someone's else: an offence is an offence. If your problem is simply with the fact that I called it plagiarism, well, feel free to call it something else. And if you truly want to convince people that you should be unbanned you should refrain from posting inflammatory comments on my userpage.

Something to think about here: Eurasia, if you had not evaded your ban, it would be half over already. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 07:58, 9 March 2007 (GMT)

That's illogical to deduce that just because I committed an offence, I can't apologise for it and truly feel sorry for what I did. I realise that my actions in circumnavigating the ban were wrong, jejune, and childish. I have never stated that you blocked me for plagiarising from your articles. Now, I recieved one telegram from you, and even then I was not given a specific example. However, I believed that I fixed it. Never was this matter throughly explained, nor was I provided with an example in which I had committed such plagiarism; I was left to my own imagination to figure out what I had done wrong.

I do not disagree that there should be some form of punishment for evading a ban; I do disagree with being banned for plagiarism, especially with the exiguous amount of warning I recieved. Had you given me more warning, more advice, or more examples of my plagiarism so that I could learn my mistake and fix them, then this ban might be warranted. But your own administrative guide, signed by you, states that a sysop must "absolutely warn the user in his 'user talk:' page, multiple times." This failed to happen. I was warned once, pre-ban. You asked to IM me after I was banned. I'm certain that warning me that I plagiarised after a ban won't help me to fix the error so that I can contribute to the wiki.

Furthermore, I still don't understand how it is acceptable for you to plagiarise from the BBC and the Economist. The individuals at those organisations placed alot of hard work into creating their slogans and core values, and it is wholly unacceptable for you to plagiarise from there. Again, why is it less acceptable for me to plagiarise? I will admit that I stated that I understood Pacitalia's statements in our IM conversation; at first, they seemed to make sense. But after researching around and thinking about them, they made no sense anymore. -- Eurasia 17:09, 9 March 2007 (GMT)

Evidence

Evidence by Pacitalia

Check the histories of the articles above to see that which Eurasia copied without the consent of the user. Also check the block log posted below.

Despite the fact that IM conversations I've had with Eurasia clearly point to his acceptance of the ban and his understanding of what offences he had committed, conversations that will clearly point to his wrongdoing, I still choose to not post the instant message conversations I had because of privacy concerns for both he and myself.

If not for anything else, Eurasia should not be unblocked because of his subsequent behaviour in opposing the ban. There is nothing wrong with disputing a block, not at all, but to do so in the way that Eurasia has shows a total lack of respect, judgment, maturity and tact on his part. Belligerently demanding that I lift this ban "at once" and then proceeding to make a show of it on the Jolt forums in the hope of winning sympathy [2], I feel, was an irresponsible move, to say the least. Also, by talking to other sysops without informing me, with whom he had the issue, of what he wanted me to do, Eurasia has thusly blatantly ignored my repeated assurances that I was more than open to discuss NSwiki policies with him and help him to become a better contributor, and that I was happy to discuss his ban even though I was the one to bestow it upon him. While he may show a desire to return to the Wiki in good faith, ready to prove himself, he has gone out of his way to inflame the situation with provocatively rude commentary on my userpage and his shameful rallying-cry on the forums, a place which neither has jurisdiction over the actions and events on this website nor cares to see our issues trickle onto their boards.

Did I make a show out of it? No. I merely asked for another wiki, one that might have clearly defined rules. I never asked for sympathy, I never asked for an ounce of it. You complain that I talked to another sysop - how is that necessarily bad? If you would look at the thread, you notice that I never approached Swilatia; how is it my problem if he requested information? Quite frankly, I think its abhorrent that you would criticise me for talking to other sysops. After all, you made a "judgement call" on this ban, and I wanted to know if someone besides yourself found it a valid one.

You also mention that you gave me the benefit of the doubt "several times". But last time I checked in the dictionary, "several" means "more than two but not many". I recieved one telegram and one IM communication, which was recieved after I was banned. That's hardly several.

Again, I am not trying to "pin an extended ban" on Pacitalia. I'm merely protesting the creation of the ban in the first place. Assi92 00:03, 12 March 2007 (GMT)

Evidence by Eurasia

My first piece of evidence stating that Pacitalia is applying a double standard in his block, thus making it unjust and violating Article XX of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

Compare this to the PBC's core values.

If Pacitalia can get away with plagiarism, why should I be blocked, even if you assume that I did plagiarise?

There's no point in this arbitration if I'm going to have repeat myself to you over and over again, Eurasia. I've already told you in a TG and in an AIM conversation that there are different contexts to the rules (i.e. copying RL → NS, and copying NS → NS), and you did not protest it then. Now you're claiming you never had these conversations with me, or at least implying it. You may feel free to copy from RL sources as long as it is within the free-documentation licence and/or does not infringe copyrights within the context. But you *should not* copy from another user on this site without asking their consent first. You did not do this on any occasion, whatsoever. It is your obligation as a user on this site to follow through on a request to share intellectual property. You failed in this regard. And you fail to sway me, and hopefully, other users, by citing laws under which I am not legally bound (I do not live in the European Union). You *are* equal before the law, but you have not carried yourself in a manner that suggests you deserve it, nor did you respond to a well-intentioned warning I made in TG (as mentioned above).

I already explained, and readily admitted, that our rules are flimsy and very loose, and that there are many loopholes. I said that this is obviously a problem that will be fixed, and hopefully very soon. I also told you that there are some cases where an administrator needs to make a judgment call based on what he perceives to be flouting of NSwiki policies, terms, conditions, etiquette, etc. This is one of those cases. I gave you the benefit of the doubt several times and you, after agreeing that the ban was fine and that you were "sorry", then proceeded to evade your ban despite my willingly giving you a lighter sentence. Just think about it - you were banned for *two weeks* for copying, or getting dangerously close to doing so, on someone else's intellectual property. You brought on the extended ban yourself, and now want to pin *that* on me, which is what's truly highly unfair in this. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 07:58, 9 March 2007 (GMT)

Evidence by third parties

Transcribed from Special:Log/block:

• 23:00, 5 March 2007 Pacitalia blocked "Eurasia (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Evading ban, second offence)
• 22:59, 5 March 2007 Pacitalia blocked "12.216.107.196 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Evading ban, second offence)
• 19:31, 4 March 2007 Pacitalia blocked "Eurasia (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 months (Evading ban, User:Eurasia)
• 19:26, 4 March 2007 Pacitalia blocked "72.232.214.186 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 months (Evading ban, User:Eurasia)
• 10:45, 4 March 2007 Pacitalia blocked "Eurasia (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Wikiplagiarism)
• 10:44, 4 March 2007 Pacitalia blocked "Eurasia (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Wikiplagiarism)
• 10:44, 4 March 2007 Pacitalia blocked "Eurasia (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 weeks (Wikiplagiarism)
• 10:43, 4 March 2007 Pacitalia unblocked Eurasia (contribs) (Changing ban length)
• 10:42, 4 March 2007 Pacitalia unblocked #745 (Changing ban length)
• 09:59, 4 March 2007 Pacitalia blocked "Eurasia (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (Provisional ban (length subject to change): plagiarism, second offence)

--User:Goobergunch|? 08:24, 8 March 2007 (GMT)