Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dudemanfellabra

As of 21:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Username:	Dudemanfellabra First edit:	Mar 18, 2008 23:49:49 Unique pages edited:	7,333 Average edits per page:	1.89 Live edits:	13,479 Deleted edits:	352 Total edits (including deleted):	13,831

Namespace Totals

Article	4743	35.19% Talk	5193	38.53% User	733	5.44% User talk	461	3.42% Wikipedia	854	6.34% Wikipedia talk	647	4.80% File	4	0.03% File talk	1	0.01% MediaWiki talk	6	0.04% Template	502	3.72% Template talk	180	1.34% Help	2	0.01% Category	72	0.53% Category talk	77	0.57% Portal	1	0.01% Portal talk	3	0.02%

Month counts

2008/03	104	2008/04	258	2008/05	272	2008/06	92	2008/07	109	2008/08	50	2008/09	10	2008/10	25	2008/11	57	2008/12	245	2009/01	234	2009/02	437	2009/03	177	2009/04	308	2009/05	297	2009/06	402	2009/07	732	2009/08	153	2009/09	5	2009/10	2	2009/11	4	2009/12	2	2010/01	662	2010/02	99	2010/03	236	2010/04	27	2010/05	86	2010/06	481	2010/07	762	2010/08	53	2010/09	9	2010/10	14	2010/11	94	2010/12	481	2011/01	2605	2011/02	751	2011/03	624	2011/04	140	2011/05	1466	2011/06	724	2011/07	190

Top edited pages

Article 367 - Meridian,_Mississippi 234 - List_of_Michigan_State_Historic_Sites 160 - Presidency_of_Barack_Obama 133 - List_of_Mississippi_Landmarks 58 - Historic_districts_in_Meridian,_Mississippi 42 - History_of_Meridian,_Mississippi 41 - Meridian_race_riot_of_1871 39 - National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_M... 34 - Mississippi 29 - List_of_National_Monuments_of_Ireland

Talk 66 - Meridian,_Mississippi 25 - Presidency_of_Barack_Obama 15 - Meridian,_Mississippi/GA1 10 - National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_G... 8 - List_of_Pittsburgh_Landmarks 8 - Union_Station_(Meridian,_Mississippi) 7 - Mississippi 7 - List_of_National_Monuments_of_Ireland 6 - Meridian_race_riot_of_1871 6 - National_Register_of_Historic_Places_listings_in_M...

User 210 - Dudemanfellabra/NRHP 103 - Dudemanfellabra/diffs.js 102 - Dudemanfellabra/vector.js 96 - Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox3 83 - Dudemanfellabra 57 - Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox1 41 - AlexNewArtBot/NRHPSearchResult 5 - Dudemanfellabra/Sandbox 3 - AlexNewArtBot/NRHPSearchResult/archive2 3 - AlexNewArtBot/NRHP

User talk 176 - Dudemanfellabra 66 - Doncram 23 - ChyranandChloe 12 - Ebyabe 9 - JL-Bot 7 - Orlady 7 - Parkwells 7 - BrownHairedGirl 6 - TonyTheTiger 6 - Nyttend

Wikipedia 128 - Main_Page_alternative_(CSS_Update) 73 - WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places 43 - WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/t... 30 - Help_desk 27 - Village_pump_(technical) 27 - 2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Dudemanfellabra 26 - 2008_main_page_redesign_proposal 24 - WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/S... 21 - WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/N... 20 - WikiProject_Historic_sites

Wikipedia talk 300 - WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places 111 - WikiProject_Historic_sites 101 - 2008_main_page_redesign_proposal 8 - 2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/ChyranandChloe 8 - WikiProject_Infoboxes 7 - WikiProject_Physics 6 - WikiProject_Television 5 - WikiProject_Protected_areas 4 - 2008_main_page_redesign_proposal/Dudemanfellabra 4 - WikiProject_Michigan

File 3 - Faded_globe.PNG 1 - Ghost_Hunters_logo.jpg

File talk 1 - Jamestown_Rhode_Island_Friends.jpg

MediaWiki talk 6 - Common.css

Template 70 - Infobox_NRHP/sandbox 49 - Designation 27 - Designation/doc 20 - Infobox_NRHP/doc 19 - Designation/Supported_designations 18 - ConvertAbbrev/ISO_639-2 18 - Infobox_NRHP/testcases 17 - ConvertAbbrev/doc 17 - Infobox_historic_site/doc 16 - Infobox_historic_site

Template talk 103 - Infobox_NRHP 14 - Did_you_know 14 - Infobox_historic_site 7 - NRISref 4 - Infobox_dam 4 - Infobox_pipeline 3 - ConvertAbbrev 3 - Importance_mask 3 - Infobox 3 - Infobox_U.S._Cabinet

Help 2 - Navigation

Category 4 - NRHP_infobox_needing_cleanup 2 - FA-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_arti... 2 - FA-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_arti... 1 - B-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic... 1 - B-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic... 1 - B-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic... 1 - GA-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_arti... 1 - GA-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_arti... 1 - B-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic... 1 - C-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic...

Category talk 1 - NRHP_infobox_needing_cleanup 1 - B-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic... 1 - B-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic... 1 - B-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic... 1 - B-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic... 1 - A-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic... 1 - B-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic... 1 - B-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic... 1 - C-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic... 1 - C-Class_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_artic...

Portal 1 - National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Portal_biogra...

Portal talk 2 - National_Register_of_Historic_Places 1 - Mississippi

The Simmons & Wright Company
The source says:

The article says:

The source says:

The article says:

Weidmann's Restaurant
The source says:

The article says:

Congregation Beth Israel (Meridian, Mississippi) (a GA)
The source says:

The article says:

The source says:

The article says:

Riley Center
The source says:

The article says:

Discussion
These are the articles I've looked at so far. Theleftorium (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a question. Did the quotations from the articles that you found contain references? Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes they did, why? Theleftorium (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * These are all paraphrased, with exception to the small snippet from Weidmann's Restaurant which concerns me. It seems like a poor job at paraphrasing, but paraphrased text that is referenced is not a copyvio.  You may point me to this: "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure."  This usually refers to when only one or two individual terms are changed.  Dudemanfellabra usually seems to at least rearrange the text as well as changing some of it.  I still don't think that he did enough rearranging and many of the links I checked need more references at each sentence, not just the end of the paragraph, but I do not see these as serious Copyvio issues.  I do believe that they are important enough that I would like to see him reword these and add more references before I can support him 100%. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So in essence I am saying these are more poor paraphrasing jobs and therefore only minor copyvio issues. Still, any copyvio issue is a problem and needs to be addressed.  Dudemanfellabra must address these issues before I can support him. Ryan Vesey (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When were the paraphrases in question added, the first one must have been recently, but the Riley Center paraphrases appear to be from 2008, which I would think reduces the relevance for this RFA. Monty  845  23:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)These examples do contain "substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure", though. Many sentences are copied directly from the sources, not just the example from Weidmann's Restaurant. But yeah, I'd also like to see him reword these examples. Theleftorium (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They are from 2010 it seems, except Riley Center which is from 2008. Theleftorium (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They do not contain "substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure." The structure has been changed in all of these examples.  In addition the wording has been modified. Change in structure=✅ Change in language=✅ Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's take a few of these sentences. The source says, "Over the next two decades, efforts increased to save the Grand Opera House and restore the Marks-Rothenberg building to its original beauty for new use." The article says, "Over the next two decades, efforts increased to save the Grand Opera House and restore the Marks Rothenberg building for new use" This is identical, save four words have been removed. The source says, "Customers who built up a tab at the store during the '30s would often try to pay it in cotton, Pickett said." The article says, "Customers who built up a tab at the store during the period would often try to pay it in cotton." The word "'30s" has been replaced with "period" and in text attribution has been removed. These are the only changes to structure and language.  This doesn't constitute a proper paraphrase under any definition, I'm afraid. I don't know how broad the problem may have been, but these are not acceptably "written from scratch" to accord with Wikipedia's copyright policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is pretty bad. I appreciated your direct comparisons.  These issues do need to be addressed by the nominee. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now remedied several of the copyright violations. The main focus of comments criticizing these contributions seems to be based on the fact that I did not sufficiently paraphrase the information in the sources. I admit that I was a bit careless with the paraphrasing and should have done a better job. In this diff I changed the wording of the two areas of concern in The Simmons & Wright Company. When I read the former of the two, I apparently didn't understand the source (not knowing much about buying cotton and operating country stores), so I figured any paraphrasing on my part might change the meaning of the source. I probably should have included a direct quote from The Meridian Star, the newspaper that ran the article I used as a source. As for the latter, that page is actually an excerpt of the National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form, which has since been uploaded to the National Park Service's Focus database, and it is included as the #4 reference in the article. Since it was published by a federal agency, it is likely to be in the public domain. Since a private citizen writes the form and submits it to the NRHP, though, that citizen may still hold the copyright. The status is unclear, and there has been extensive discussion at WP:NRHP pertaining to these documents. The best that consensus could hash out is to treat these as copyrighted material, but a little less loosely than other sources. I have modified the article text a bit, but the copyright status of this source is ambiguous.

As for Congregation Beth Israel, in this diff I reworded the article text to avoid copyright infringement. I felt that both of these were minor - though still noteworthy - instances of lazy paraphrasing.

The Riley Center article - as others have mentioned - was written way back in 2008, among some of my first contributions. Looking back at the article, I believe it deserves an entire rewrite, which I will now add to my to-do list. In any case, I have rewritten the paragraph pointed out in this section but plan to do a lot more with that article when possible.

Weidmann's Restaurant is the most stressing case. I think the best option here would be to place quotes around the bolded portion of the excerpt above and attribute it to the source. I'm kind of pressed for time at the moment, but I will eventually get around to doing so. I actually have come across a new source since I wrote that article that I have been planning to include.

The main problem with articles like these in a very small city in Mississippi is that, frankly, there just isn't a lot written about them. Some editors have expressed the desire for more sources to be included. I would love to be able to do that, but there just isn't much out there. Because of the lack of sources, it is difficult to write a fully-developed article without at least somewhere being pretty close to a single source's nomenclature and language. The excerpts above are just a few sentences out of an entire article, some of which were written long ago. As I said in the original nomination, I am mainly focused on back door operations of the encyclopedia, but I do plan to return to actual mainspace contributions in the future when I get a bit more crossed off of my to-do list. When making those future contributions, I will remain keenly aware of the concerns expressed in these comments for sure. Until I have more time to dedicate to developing these articles more fully, I don't see why these small issues would detract from the overall work that I have done.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely positive what to think of this. You certainly addressed the problem and I understand that you seemed very pressed for time, but you admittedly did not make an edit to Weidmann's Restaurant which you stated was the most stressing case.  Copyvios must be corrected and it would have been more appropriate to correct that pressing error first.  Indeed, we are all slightly at fault on this one, we clearly stated that there was a serious copyright issue on the page, but none of us corrected it.  I found your changes to The Simmons & Wright Company satisfactory. Ryan Vesey (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the perceived rush last night; I was going to a movie, and I didn't expect so much to come up at the very beginning of this RfA. I just edited Weidmann's to include the new source I mentioned above (although it is an offline book). Several people have pointed out that my efforts to "paraphrase a paraphrase" are not fully addressing the problem and that I should rewrite the entire section or article. I agree with you, as I mentioned above in the Riley Center case, and I will get around to rewriting and expanding these articles as I have just done to the Weidmann's one. The new source I added to that article is a three-volume book about the history of pretty much everything in Meridian, so I plan to incorporate it into several articles. As I said in my original nomination, I am at the moment focusing on behind the scenes improvement such as talk page edits, template coding, and infobox maintenance. When I get a few of those crossed off of my list, I will surely return to actively developing articles like these in mainspace much more regularly. For the time being, though, would the small revisions that I have made to these pages suffice to remove copyvio/plagiarism concerns? With those corrected or at least improved, would there be any chance of a vote change, or should I just withdraw the nomination now? I really would like to keep the nomination going–for the full seven days if required–and if it is deemed necessary, I may go through the problem articles mentioned above in the next seven days to do a total rewrite. I would like to be able to stick to my original plan and postpone that part until later, but if consensus requires it, I am willing to do it. If this is the case, I invite editors to also look over my other work, such as the main city article, Meridian, Mississippi, the History of Meridian, Mississippi, and Historic districts in Meridian, Mississippi. Those three articles have been the core of my editing focus. Thanks for all the constructive criticism here; I knew these articles were a bit sub-par (although I was a bit surprised when Beth Israel came up.. one of my two GAs), and I had originally planned to go back to them, but as I have said the entire time, they are not in my crosshairs at the moment. I'm about to answer the extra questions asked on the main page of this nomination now. Thanks again for the comments.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have a great attitude and promising potential. It is unfortunate that circumstances have arisen as they have. I do think you would improve your credible standing by recognizing the emerging consensus and withdrawing your nomination at this time. I honestly think you could return in 3 to 6 months, and pass with significant support but am equally convinced that this bid has no chance at success. Best regards My76Strat  talk  02:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Advice. Even if your interests are back-office stuff on Wiki, think it would be good to work on some more new articles and demonstrate proper attribution and writing, over the next 6-12 months, before coming back to RFA. It won't hurt you, will be good training, will show you some different aspects of the project and make you a better admin. Will also really check the box and get this behind you. Good luck. Peace, bra...dude...fella.TCO (talk) 02:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Validity of these copyvios
I would like to create a section addressing the validity of these copyvios as there are many issues.
 * 1) All of these are paraphrased, not copied.
 * 2) Many of these are from 2008-2010 a minimum of 6 months.
 * 3) The quotations provided of Dudemanfellabra's additions are taken out of context and do not include the references he has provided Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, my problem with them is the sort of rudimentary "close paraphrase" they represent; Close paraphrasing (while an essay) explains the problem quite well. It is a different sort of thing to take a source, internalize it, and create new text from it which is the Wikipedia writers own creation based on the sources, than it is to make some superficial changes to the word order and then slap a cite on it.  While the latter is technically not in violation of copyright violation by the slimmest of margins, it does represent a sort of intellectual laziness that to me shows potential problems in understanding the nuances of copyright and plagiarism that Wikipedia admins (in terms of deletion, and in assessing the edits of others) which I see as a potential problem.  It's not a total deal killer for me, at least in terms of "This user shall never be an admin as long as I am alive", however the fact that these remained in the text until the RFA was created shows a general problem that seems to show me that this user isn't ready today for adminship.  Perhaps, in some months, they may have learned how to distinguish behind truly original writing based on proper research, and merely messing with the word order of other's work to technically avoid copyvios.  But today I don't see evidence of such.  Of course, I expect others to have differing opinions, and I am of no mind to talk others out of their opinions based on my own view of the situation, but that is my rationale on withdrawing my support of this user, at this time.  -- Jayron  32  00:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That was my same rationale for withdrawing my support. I wish Dudemanfellabra would address these issues so I could be sure in my decision.  If he addresses the issue and changes the wording, it would be enough to regain support from me. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So why did you initially support without doing any checks at all? Malleus Fatuorum 00:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can honestly say that I supported before I had finished my research on the candidate because I felt like it was odd commenting on my dislike of your oppose rationale without supporting the candidate myself. I had planned to do more research and in hindsight it appears that it was a poor decision. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So basically you're saying that you supported because I opposed? Malleus Fatuorum 00:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More that I supported due to the nature of your oppose. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You supported without any examination of the candidate is what you're saying, just because you took exception to my oppose. Do you really think that's a proper way to elect Wikipedia's administrators? Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I have pointed out that it was a poor decision. Now I would appreciate it if you would put down the stick. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ( with the above two comments) Malleus is of course correct here (at least in regards to my initial support.) Honestly, he seemed like a nice guy, and I helped him in a very rudimentary way in polishing up his RFA. So I supported him initially, based on a very rudimentary familiarity with him (that is, none at all, excepting the half-dozen or so interactions I had with him today alone). Clearly, that was in error, as Malleus is quite right in pointing out, this user had some problems which showed up rather quickly. Thankfully these showed up due to the dilligent work of another editor, and the in the end it will likely turn out OK. However, it does not excuse my laziness or lack of checking in this part. Malleus is quite right to chasitse me for such a lack of good judgement; I don't normally comment on RFAs (I'm quite sure this is the only one I have commented on in over a year) and this entire event is perhaps a good reason why I should return to ignoring RFA. I do want to earnestly thank Theleftorium for finding these problems, and to Malleus for keeping my feet to the fire. I am the last person to claim to being perfect, and the best thing I can say of my own mistake here is that at least it was caught in time. Anyhoo, live and learn. -- Jayron  32  00:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have some similarities with Jayron32 in that I had seen the discussion at the help desk and went in to the discussion planning to support. Without such a plan of support I would not have been so quick to add my comments to Malleus' oppose and consequently add my own support. Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free text
Advice to Dudemanfellabra;

is something of an expert on this stuff, and once said, non-free content has to be used transformatively (one of the factors of fair use). This is why NFC says that "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." In complying with our approach to non-free text, we can't really just copy the content because we want to also share the information. In that case, we should rewrite the material in our own words, using brief quotations only as necessary for a purpose such as those described. 

For this current RfA, the concerns raised will, I think, mean it has (s)no realistic chance of succeeding, and I advise you to withdraw it, then work on gaining a better understanding of close-para, etc...fix any and all articles you've edited...maybe even work to help with other copyvios...and come back in >6 months. Of course, try to learn from the other comments such as re. your CSD-work, and take it all as constructive criticism.

Thanks for putting yourself forward; hope to see you at RfA in some time.  Chzz  ► 05:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawing the nomination
Ok I guess there's no way to salvage this at all. At the advice of several others, I am withdrawing this nomination. I would like to thank everyone for the moral support and encouragement for a possible future nomination, but I'm not sure I'll be submitting another RfA at any time in the future. While I would love to have access to the features, and I'm sure I would slowly learn how to use them properly, I was not aware of the breadth and depth of experience needed to become an administrator. Frankly, I just really don't have any interest whatsoever in monitoring new articles about subjects which may as well be written in Greek to me or playing mother when people argue over every jot and tittle. My main goal is to improve the encyclopedia in any way possible, be it behind the scenes or visible to everyone... to include as much as possible within reason (thus my answer to Q4). Though it is definitely possible for me to scour all the help files and guides to acquaint myself with the nuances of specific policies and the tools given to all administrators, I just don't have the will to do so. I would rather spend time doing the stuff that I want to do, instead of having to fit into the mold of adminship. Had I been given these tools after this nomination, I would have used them extremely sparingly, only in cases where a five year old could make the decision. The main tool I wanted was the ability to edit protected pages. I guess I'm stuck in editprotected land until maybe at some point that ability is split out on its own. Again, thanks to all the commentators for the advice and moral support. So long for now.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that, I have closed the candidacy as a non-admin withdrawl.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 09:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your actions and attitude throughout this process, which must have been a stressful time for you, have been commendable. Best wishes for next time. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)