Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CarolSpears

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve the 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''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
''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
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
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. A more lengthy page of evidence is linked at the end. Agrostis gigantea ran on Wikipedia's Main Page, through Did you know?

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.

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.

Finally, the section Distribution. This section is made by combining sentences from both of the sources alternatively.

As can be seen, the only change is the addition of one word in the last sentence.

Agrostis gigantea is not the only problematic article, though it is among the worst: you could easily go through the entire article and find more plagiarism at or near that level. Details of the rest of the known plagiarism by CarolSpears can be found at /Evidence, and include at least one article, Clementine, that (on a quick check), appears to have had similar problems [I found a lengthy copy-paste without much digging], and a lot of other articles with problems at a slightly lower level. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:COPYVIO

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive435
 * My attempt
 * Carcharoth
 * SBJohnny, also
 * Mayalld, also
 * LessHeardvanU

This is a sample, see User talk:CarolSpears for a full list.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(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"   She was blocked by Ryan Postlethwaite over this.  See also  and.
 * Various statements saying that she should not be held to WP:COPYVIO, e.g.   A few highlights:
 * Claims that checking her contributions for copyright violations is stalking, and that people holding her to it should be arrested and fined.
 * "So! what I have learned today is that it is far more advantageous to not document the sources..."
 * Etc. see the ANI thead and her talk page for more.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Durova Charge! 00:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Mayalld (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * User has not yet responded to RfC as of yet, which is somewhat troubling given the magnitude of the violations and the fact she was nearly banned over them. Blueboy96 13:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Response
''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 by involved
Firstly, I believe that it is established that there is a issue of plagiarism regarding some articles as edited by CarolSpears (CS) and does not need addressing at this RfC, only what should be done about it and CS's attitude regarding attempts to address it. I have found CS to be extremely difficult to communicate with, but not because of a lack of willingness between the parties; I find that she has little in common with the majority of editors who adopt and use WP terminology and appear conversant with the needs to explicitly comply with policy and guidelines - but again with no indication of bad faith. She has, however, appeared to respond positively to persons who demonstrate some knowledge of both the subject matter and the rigours of academic research writing and feel that should there be someone with these attributes willing to mentor CS then the encyclopedia will greatly the beneficiary.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Mentoring can be explored, but I am concerned with the statement that CS will only respond to certain editors and not to others. If ths RfC will impose mentoring, it would have to be without pre-conditions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) A mentor should aim to help User:CarolSpears integrate with fellow editors as well as with editing issues (I think this is basically the same as User:Jossi's concern above).  She might appreciate some help with the alphabet soup too, which can get quite bewildering at times.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   &#x2296;  14:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) -- SB_Johnny  | talk  17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposals
Carol has created dozens, if not hundreds, of botanical articles, and in a few cases has replaced apparently non-copyright-violating articles with new, copyright-violating text. (e.g., Clementine). We're going to have to try and come up with a way to deal with this. I would suggest we here list proposals to deal with it.

Proposal #1 by
I think we have to accept that we can't fix everything. As such, I would propose that we use a bot to extract all articles created by Carol, and, an admin would simply go through and delete them. I don't see any other way forwards without an entire Wikiproject worth of people going around checking every line of every article Carol made.

This is a pragmatic option, but the scope of the copyvio seems very large. Even with this option, a lot of work will remain: Carol has several times replaced apparently non-copyright violating articles such as Clementine with a copyright-violating alternative, and all those will have to be reverted. She has also several times replaced a redirect with a copyright-infringing article on the same subject as the article originally redirected to, e.g, she created a new page on German Chamomile - already an article - at its scientific name.

NOTE: This is being further explored on the talk page, starting with her new articles. It may be that we can actually review her work in full. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Secondary comment: Per the talk page, the number of articles is not so large that they are unreviewable, and we were able to get them down to a lengthy, but not overwhelming list of problematic articles, which may be fixable, or at worst can probably be stubbified and the references moved to the talk page. Hence, the actual effect of this proposal can be modified:
 * All of CarolSpears' new articles will be reviewed
 * Problematic articles will be reworked or stubbified in the main, it will not be necessary to delete them in large numbers. References will be put on the talk page.
 * A minority may be deleted, but this will be much smaller in number.
 * I don't believe anyone will object to these happy changes, made possible pretty much because of the legwrk by User:Blechnic and, I believe, WP:PLANTS. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this proposal:
 * 1) Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse the sadly extensive deletions needed to protect the project, in both its reputation and the eyes of the law. The only alternative is for CarolSpears herself to correct every such mistake, as she knows where they all are, and this would help prove that mentoring would work, and that she doesn't need a community ban. ThuranX (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Endorse, it is sad the work that is needed to try to fix and find all the work that needs to be undone to repair the damage done.  I would also like to say that Shoemaker Holiday has put forth an admirable effort to find and repair the copy/pastes that have been done across many articles only to be attacked for bringing forth what he has found in his research of this.  I for one, just a small editor here of no real significance in my opinion of myself, appreciate his/her hard work and would like to personally say thank you.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, but modified to the extent that art least some of the articles can be stubbified, especially the biographical ones.  I've already done this with one or two of them. If people can help me get a list, i will do the others if the people are clearly notable. DGG (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Tough call: a less drastic alternative would certainly be preferable, but I simply don't have time to sift through the material in detail.  Since I won't be walking that walk myself, I can't ask it of anyone else.  Endorse.  Durova Charge! 16:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose (seems to be no section for that). I think it would be much better if Carol just went and fixed them up herself, with help from her mentors. -- SB_Johnny  | talk  18:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose mass deletions (so far neutral on the second proposal): This would be extreme overkill. I have found copyvios by anons that were as extensive as anything Carol has done, and merely reverted them. And at least some of Carol's contributions are in no sense copyvio (the amount of the original being so small as to easily fit within Fair Use) but are instead plagiarism. Deletion of articles for plagiarism (rather than refactoring them or deleting at most the plagiarized sections) establishes a dangerous new precedent.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

View by Durova
CarolSpears has disrupted featured picture candidacies on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons since at least December 2007. The source of her grievance is she nominated on November 21, 2007. She attempted a restoration of the Wright brothers' historic flight, and her work was not promoted. An unrestored version of the photograph was already featured. I did not participate in that discussion and had no involvement in featured pictures up until that time. The following month I started running featured picture candidates. At one of my nominations she linked to her own Wright brothers restoration candidacy while she made an unhelpful comment. The same day she made another odd comment to a different image restoration I had up for featured picture candidate at the same time.

I approached her politely to open a dialog. Carol's reply included: It is all I can do to not ask you whose ass you kissed (or worse) to get some positive recognition from FP. I read that as a weak attempt at humor; it was just too over the top to take seriously. Then the following day she reused it in a different discussion with a third party: ''That person, together with another person who doesn't know the difference between noise and grain. Together they what? And yes, I suspect there is a crime going on... What do you think Durova did to get the warm reception? I ask because that doesn't happen from doing good work.''

With the notable exception of Carol, a warm reception does come from doing good work. During the next two months I made friendly overtures to her, but nothing could overcome a factor beyond my control: Carol resented me because a Commons editor by the name of Ben Aveling had conominated one of my earliest featured picture candidates. Prior to my meeting him he had commented upon (but not opposed) Carol's failed featured picture nomination. She held that grudge a long time. Here she explains it on 15 January. On 19 February she nominated the unrestored version of the Wright brothers' flight for delisting--the same one she had tried to restore--with a comment directed specifically at me ''I have a very strong feeling that Durova charge! will have a much improved version within a few hours (depending on her internet connection) to put in its place.''

21 minutes before Carol singled me out in that nomination, she had disrupted another featured picture candidate I had underway. I had done nothing to antagonize her. Immediately afterward, she went over to English Wikipedia and disrupted yet another featured picture candidate I had restored--not by addressing me directly, but by adding an inappropriate template to a brand new voter's post. Then when the editor reverted her change she re-added it.  He went over to her user talk page in good faith, to try to work things out. See this thread. As soon as my name got mentioned she made her resentment very clear. Oh, the pet of the FPCs probably is too busy with her renovations, workshop and running around talk pages asking for a break to lower herself to explain things to me. The unfortunate newcomer found himself in the middle of a storm and, although I tried to reassure him, he stayed away from FPC for the next four months. Carol followed me to my user talk, trying to bait me. I told her to stop the disruption. In spite of two months of problem behavior, I had made no formal complaint.

Meanwhile she was bothering other editors at FPC. One left the complaint Somehow you managed to be unhelpful, insulting, and sarcastic all at the same time at her user talk after seeing her response to a reasonable question. Minutes after he posted, she followed him to an article he had created and got blocked for wikistalking by Hesperian.

I would have been glad to let matters rest, but she resumed causing problems for me in June. As background, 5 January: she edits an image of General Douglas MacArthur that I had restored, two hours after I had nominated it for featured picture. The image passed featured candidacy on both projects. Then on 1 June, the day the image ran on Wikipedia's main page, she raises complaints about the image at two different user talk pages with fresh insinuations that featured picture candidacies are corrupt.

On 17 June she resumed disruption directly at a featured picture candidate I had worked on, again selecting a place where a new participant was active. I had spent weeks coaching the conominator Steve Crossin in the software; he had maxed out his ISP's monthly upload cap on the collaboration. In spite of Carol's disruption the nomination passed, but I can't call it a success. While the ANI thread about Carol was underway Steve declared an indefinite wikibreak and posted the following to his user page:


 * At the moment, I see a current trend on Wikipedia. Hard working Wikipedian's have to fight constant, tireless battles, to get any progress done, and to be honest, I'm tired of it. I'm tired of every day, having to battle with users across the globe over petty little things.

I could raise other examples but I think this is enough to make the point: CarolSpears manufactures grievances out of thin air, cannot be satisfied or reassured, sows baseless rumors, and drives away good people.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  Durova Charge! 10:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Perhaps a ban from FPC is in order here. MER-C 11:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I saw some of the rank incivility and disruption that Durova refers to above myself months ago, both on Commons and on en. Reviewing a recent AN/I has convinced me that not only has little changed in the behaviour, but the risk to WP is considerable. Orderinchaos 11:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I've been following this since the start of ANI and have to say this is really quite disturbing behavior.  I have to agree with what is stated here. What I see is someone who claims to be a victim and not someone ready or willing to admit that there is a problem with all of the issues brought up in recent days.  It really does sadden me to see behaviors like this, which of course does nothing at all to help the project and only hurts it and the editors who really put forth sincere time and energy to help the project. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by barely-tangentially-involved User:Grey Knight
Existing edits: In very technical articles, it can be difficult to rewrite things "in your own words", since particular words and phrases are themselves part of the technical language of most fields. The example paragraphs given above are the most similar, but it is obvious from some of User:CarolSpears' other edits that she has at least tried to reword some of the text. Technical rewording is genuinely hard (some external essays:, ) and if User:CarolSpears is having trouble with this then some of us should help rewrite the text in question (I have a partial list of articles which I want to help with myself). I appreciate User:Shoemaker's Holiday's efforts in compiling a list of articles with problems, and would like him to post a simple "To-Do" list somewhere to aid collaboration in fixing. WikiProject Plants would probably be interested (although I do not support just "dumping it on them").

Future edits: I think User:CarolSpears does appreciate that there is a valid concern which needs to be addressed with regards to this kind of edit, and encourage her to continue working on improving herself in this area. Rewording technical text is hard but achievable with some experience. Optionally, she might like to investigate Editor review as a place where some of the people most experienced with difficult editing questions can give her some tips. There are also some documents to be found off-site on what is a known problem in many fields which might give some useful advice (for example, suggests the "read and understand, then write from your notes" approach). She might like to maintain a "To-Do" list herself of any articles where she isn't sure if her contribution needs further rewriting or not.

Sarcasm: Like myself, User:CarolSpears seems to have a natural tendency to employ sarcasm as humour to try and deal with uncomfortable situations. Since this often doesn't help, especially on the Internet, I would encourage her to try and consciously work on that as well. It is important to remember that you can always take a break and do something else for a while before responding to another's comment; it's only a website :-).

Mentorship: User:LessHeard vanU has offered to mentor User:CarolSpears. He has come across to me as a fairly calm and collected individual when I have run across him around the site, so I would encourage User:CarolSpears to give this a try. This isn't a case of "having a prefect check up on you", but rather of a friend helping you with things.

(PS: Apologies, I didn't at first notice that User:SB Johnny is also a fine proposed mentor. This comment added after second endorsement.)
 *  (Actually, User:SB Johnny is a farmer, and cannot take on a full mentorship role at this time of year. -- SB_Johnny | talk  18:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   &#x2296;  13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Crohnie Gal Talk  15:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, no apology necessary that I see. I still endorse your comments. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Partial agreement: While I agree with most of your statements, when she puts her mind to it, she seems fully capable of turning a dense, heavily-abbreviated technical description into mostly acceptable text (even if /Evidence documents some of her failures). Some of her worst copyvios often come from plain-English sources: See, e.g. Clementine, the "Lake Kimilili" section of Subularia monticola, Senecio angulatis (all on /Evidence) or the "Distribution" section of Agrostis gigantea in my statement above. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) While the offer of mentorship by me is still open, I have reservations that I am capable of engaging fully with CS - there isn't a lot of common ground. However, I do think this editor is worth the effort. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Outsidish view by the more-or-less outside SB_Johnny
Carol is a very problematic editor, and certainly not the first to pop up among the knowledgeable plant article editors (see here and here, for example). A love of things botanical tends to attract an odd lot (myself included), and can even make otherwise normal people pick up odd habits (see example). Carol's on the extreme end in many facets, but this is not a person I would accuse of having bad intentions.

With the copyvio stuff in mind, there is also the fact of the "standard botanical descriptive language" to be dealt with, and speaking as someone with no less than three floras on the bathroom shelf, I can assure you that more often than not you'd have a hard time differentiating between the description text of those floras for any particular species. This doesn't justify copy-paste, but there does come a point sometimes where it's hard to see room for improvement when the source language is so dense and loaded.

I also think it should be clear that regardless of the problems, we should all bear in mind that Carol is clearly interested in improving the articles on plants, in the sense that if someone looks up a plant on Wikipedia, they will almost certainly find what they're looking for. Physical descriptions in particular have historically been lacking on Wikipedia articles, and while Wikipedia's scope rules out being a substitute for a flora with keys (that's a job more suited for Wikiversity and/or Wikibooks), it is nice to have enough physical description in an article to be able to feel confident that the plant you looked up is indeed the plant you saw today (this includes the information about where it's found, etc.).

However, Carol is clearly guilty of academic sloth. She has (admirably) tried to improve a very large quantity of articles, but has fallen into a bad habit of doing copy-paste as a shortcut, rather than moving more slowly and concentrating on the unique quality of articles, with an emphasis on unique, because the point of doing things the wiki way is not to be "just as good as the other encyclopedias", but rather to be leaps and bounds better than any encyclopedia. I think her ambition is quite admirable, but I also think she has yet to grasp the inherent beauty of wiki: eventually the articles you don't have time for will find someone with the time.

The personality issues are a different story. I feel confident in saying that Carol is not a troll. She does, on the other hand, march to the beat of a different drummer, and I get the feeling she's the sort who equates "pulling the punches" with "rank dishonesty". On the other hand she herself is far from iron-skinned, and quite frankly I think at least some of the good folks who are expressing concern about her editing are engaging in some inappropriately lupine behavior. Even if she has shown a predisposition to bite, anyone over the age of 5 should have learned by now that 2 wrongs don't make a right. When this RFC was started, she had already had at least 3 editors helping her, and since was not resisting the mentoring, there was absolutely no reason to request a dogpile.

In summary, Carol is a motivated contributor who wants to see a better encyclopedia. She is also, I suspect, a bit overwhelmed at the enormity of the task (hence the well-meant but unacceptable shortcuts). And yes, she has a hard time communicating, connecting, and sharing the yoke. But she's demonstrated a desire to try to improve, so she deserves our patience and support.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- SB_Johnny  | talk  17:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely trying -- tiny plastic Grey Knight   &#x2296;  17:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Outsidish view by the more-or-less outside Curtis Clark
I agree with SB Johnny that Carol is a problematic editor, but rather than simply endorse his summary (which I do), I want to elaborate. Carol began editing without an understanding that some areas of botany (nomenclature, in the examples I am most familiar with) are highly technical, and that an editor without a clear understanding of the underlying concepts cannot reliably interpret the literature. To her credit, she has come to understand her inexpertise, and accept help from other editors. I believe that this same process is at work in her acceptance of the problems of plagiarism and copyright violation.

Like many other editors who have posted here, I find it difficult to communicate with Carol, and not especially rewarding, but I think the work she has done, plagiarism notwithstanding, is already a significant contribution in the areas of some little-known plants, and she has the potential to be a productive editor.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Curtis Clark (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I support this summary, although I don't want to minimize the serious problems (of which WP:CIVIL is probably the most serious for me). Kingdon (talk) 04:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) *I agree that her incivility is a major problem.--Curtis Clark (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) WP would be better for having CS contibuting usefully than not having CS contributing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)  tiny plastic Grey Knight   &#x2296;  14:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Outside view
''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:

Question
Does anyone know a word that rhymes with "species"? -- carol (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary:

May as well close this
As CarolSpears has been blocked indefinitely, I propose this RFC be closed. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this closure:
 * 1) Stifle (talk) 12:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) The RFC clearly failed to achieve its objectives, but as it doesn't look like Carol will unblocked anytime soon, there seems little purpose in this RFC now Mayalld (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Let's keep the talk page open to work on fixing things up, though. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
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.