User talk:Woofie

-Will Beback 16:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I will discuss at the discussion committee for Jerry Jones.

The what? --pgk^(talk) 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I have been banned and can not even attend the trail again. I would appreciate if I can be unbanned so I can atleast do a follow up post at the arbitration committee and answer peoples questions there where I feel its more appropriate. I have already discussed this with Will privately and I do not intend to do it again because I know it will result in a ban. Will you said that I can absolutely defend myself but apparently you were lying. I was too busy on the days when people were voting and I got banned. Now that I have time to fully defend myself I am denied and confined to what seems to be a one person decision. I thought it's innocent until proven guilty? I am already assumed to be guilty and I was never able to defend myself. I thought it was innocent until proven guilty? I also would appreciate if you can leave my 1924 immigration act picture and I added many pictures from President Coolidge that are for public use. I dont see why the picture is being removed because its educational and nice to look at. Can I defend myself at the committee and answer other peoples questions? It would be rude to not answer them.

Woofie 20:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In such circumstances you should email a member/memebers of the arbitration comittee with anything you wish to add. --pgk^(talk) 20:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that it would be better to talk to the whole committee so they can all make the decision together instead of talking to each person individually. If its possible I would like to address all of their questions and I dont think I can do it as well privately. In my response as "Woofie" to the committee I said that I was unable to defend myself and one user responded saying "Isnt that what you are doing now?" I had a feeling that I was going to be re banned and denied my representation so that is why I said it and apparently I was right. How can I defend myself when I can't give detailed answers to follow up questions? Keep in mind the person who has issues with me is the one who has full authority over me. Is this how wikipedia operates?

Woofie 20:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You wouldn't need to address them all individually, they would post anything required on the arbitration pages and discuss on the mailing lsit as they normally do. This is the normal procedure. --pgk^(talk) 21:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why cant I defend myself? I have nothing to hide and I dont appreciate being assumed to be guilty. I have already explained myself and I am not sure exactly what questions people want me to answer and I dont know if I like that fact that one person can select certain quotes and present them to the committee as they see fit. I feel that it would be better if I can talk to the committee myself once and for all. I just dont see the problem on why I cant answer peoples questions. Whats the point of asking me a question if I can't answer it? I would just like a fair trail once and for all. I have already talked to certain members privately and you get a much different response in privacy from them then when you are out in the open.

Woofie 22:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You posted two long messages defending yourself on WP:ANI, but your defenses did not address the actual issues. In particular, the plagiarism goes far beyond a single quote from Neurenger. Further, your POV pushing goes beyond just removing "far left" from a few articles. Please read the initial presentation carefully, along with the input from other users. -Will Beback 23:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the plagiarism was just a misunderstanding. I can't even find the committee topic anymore. Please feel free to show me all issues that you have with Jerry Jones and we can go over everything. I should have summarized Nuerengers work and re wrote it but I didn't think it was an issue to cite it as Nuerengers work and add him as a reference but I was wrong. Now as for far left I will give an example. I think the John marie le pen is a good one. The Front National party continually denies that they are far right as does John Marie Le Pen. I feel that asserting that they are far right is an opinion and contradicts what the party says. They are far right according to who? It's not right to say they are far right as a fact when they deny it. How would you feel if I said that you are a communist continually when you believe that you are not? I don't even know why I have to address this because it is clearly POV. You also didn't realize that I didn't remove every use of the term far right in the article. I will go over the John marie le pen article as an example for all. The words in bold signal my edit removal and the rest of the words are the article as it remains today:

Le Pen is known for advocating controversial and extremist policies, possibly including the reinstatement of the death penalty; strong restrictions on immigration to France from countries outside Europe; and withdrawal or at least far greater independence from the European Union. Jean-Marie Le Pen has, at times, made remarks considered to be racist and antisemitic, such as deporting all irregular migrants from France, and that the killing of Jews in gas chambers was a mere detail of history.

People who supoprt reinstating the death penalty and withdrawing from the EU qualifies someone as an extremist? You just called a substantial part of the republican party extreme and the 5 million people who voted for Le Pen in France. If that is not pushing a POV I dont know what is. I didn't remove "Le pen is considered to be racist, anti semetic, etc" because that is a legitimate viewpoint. I also didnt remove information in the article that surely makes him seem extreme because its true and I do not remove information only POV.

Part of the Le Pen article:

Le Pen and the National Front are described by all commentators except those from the Front to be far right. Le Pen himself disagrees with this label. Earlier on, Le Pen described his position as "Neither left nor right, but French" (Ni droite, ni gauche, français).

I didn't remove far right here. It's used correctly and I think its good to have it and I think everyone likes to know what other people think of him. If someone removed this paragraph I would revert it. But to say he is far right denies Le Pen of his viewpoint and you are stating something as fact that he disagrees with. Its not NPOV. You portray me like I remove bad information to make these people look like saints but its simply not true. I also have only had one copyright violation for the image Jamie L. Whitten and it was the fault of someone else and I cleared it up immediately.

Woofie 01:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about your editing behavior is located here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Jerry Jones/JJstroker. -Will Beback 01:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And you showed me that why? I can't respond. I would appreciate a response but I would like to talk to the whole committee instead of just you because you have already made your decision.

Woofie 03:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked by the action of one admin with the approval of the community. In violation of that block you created a new username, posted a second defense to the ANI page, then proceeded to reinstate the very plagiarism that you were banned for. What is it that you wish to say now that you didn't say previously? What assurance do we have that if we temporarily unblock you to make a response you won't go off making other edits? -Will Beback 03:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I wont make any other edits. If it's ok I would like to add pictures but I will be sure not to add any other work unless I am given permission and this is resolved. I certainly wont go and remove "racist" and "far right" from articles regardless of my opinion. You can ban me if I dont comply (Even though I will). I was even planning before I was banned to stop and just work on pictures and things of that nature but unfortunately I was banned. I was banned before I was able to defend myself. I feel that the ban was unjustified because they didn't let me explain the edits and the information that their decision was based on was very misleading, out of context, one sided etc. They were only presented one side and many of the people who voted were still not sure on how to cast their vote from what I read. If you can get the committee to give me a re vote on this name and allow me to defend myself I will be pleased. If I am banned then I will leave and it will be settled. My issue is that I was never able to defend myself nor did I receive any response from you. I contacted you a few times to resolve this problem but you ignored me and went to the committee to get me banned which I certainly didn't appreciate. I dont want to be disruptive. There is nothing more that I would like to do then settle this far right and racist issue once and for all. I just want to come to a conclusion that everyone can agree upon. I even tried to contact you and Jay a few times to settle it but I was ignored. I just want to answer any questions anyone has and be able to move on in peace. I was wrong about the plagiarism I thought adding citations and references was ok but I should have atleast summarized and re wrote it.

Woofie 04:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you were not banned before you could defend yourself. I first raised the plagiarism issue with you here[1]. You sidestepped the issue. Then I raised it on the AN/I, where you made this defense [2], in which you ignored the actual issues raised. You or another editor posted a poorly phrased defense here[3][4][5] Finally, after input from 12 admins and editors, one of the adminsacted onthe consensus to block you. Subsequently, you violated your block in order to post this long defense, [6], in which you misstated what I had written while again ignoring the actual issues. Then, as I mentioned before, you restored the plagiarism which was at the core of the complaint. Up to this point you have not acknowledged the plagiarism, which is not of Nuerenger, but of MacDonald. You are apparently aware of what plagiarism is, as you have been active in promoting that charge against M.L. King. Even now, when I have offered you an opportunity to make yet another defense, you indicate that you would use that opportunity to do other things beyond your defense. I asked you what there is you need to say that you didn't say previously, but you haven't mentioned anything. There are no substantive questions outstanding. -Will Beback 04:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

When you warned me about plagiarism with link 1 I did not think it was plagiarism. Heck I didnt think it was plagairism until just recently. Response number two was my personal response to you and not to the committee. I assure you response 3,4, and 5 are not mine. Do an IP check if you must and contact the person in question. I did violate my ban because I feel that it's unjustified and the decision was based on misleading, one sided, and biased out of context info and that is what I am trying to resolve right now. I said I would be more then happy to answer any questions you have and please feel free to ask me whatever you wish.

Woofie 04:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain what you think plagiarism is, and please identify the instances in which you engaged in it. -Will Beback 04:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The definition of plagarism:

1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own

I already admitted to plagiarisng certain work and it was a mistake. I didnt think it was plagarism because I added citiations and references for the 1924 immigration act article and the CPUSA article. If I wanted to pass it off as my own I wouldn't have added a reference or a citation and I thought that was ok but I was wrong. I should have re wrote it. I also was going to rewrite the 1924 immigration act article and overhaul it and add an anti catholicism section and put everything in my own words but I didn't have time.

Woofie 05:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not admit plagiarizing work, you said that you hadn't plagiarized because you listed the reference to Neurenger. However you didn't copy the material from Neurenger, you copied it from MacDonald. Further, your protest that you didn't have time to summarize the material in your own words is totally specious. You had plenty of time to engage in revert wars and long talk page disputes over the material. When asked for sources you didn't say, "oh, I copied the text from author X." Instead you went back to the site you had copied from and got the references that the original author had used. That does not appear to me to be the action of an honest editor in a hurry. Instead you appear to have gone to great lengths to re-work our Immigration Act of 1924 article so that it was amost entirely composed of K.MacDonald's words. And when you came back you simply restored that same plagiarized material. So, either you do not understand what plagiarism is, or you did so on purpose. Since you have demonstrated that you know what plagiarism is, and that it is wrong, I can only assume that you did so on purpose. Your request is denied. -Will Beback 05:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Writing quality articles takes a lot of time which I did not have. I was planning to go to the library and pick up a lot of books and get info to do it. Going in revert wars is not the same as spending your time writing huge articles and research. If I am going to write an article I want to do a quality job. I admitted to plagiarising MacDonald for the CPUSA article. I did for the CPUSA article and for the anti semetism section of the 1924 article I read over MacDonald but it was Neurengers work. I did restore the work because I didn't believe that it was plagarised at the time. I didn't think it was plagiarism because it says "To pass someone elses work as your own" I did not try to pass it off as my own I cited Nuerenger and and all of the work in both articles. I didnt think it was necessary to cite MacDonald for the article because it wasn't his work it was Nuerengers work. If I were to read Hemmingway and I wanted to tell someone about some good info in it would I cite a scholar or Hemmingway?

Woofie 05:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This "didn't have time" argument is absurd. If you don't have time to make an acceptable edit, don't make an edit! I have numerous drafts of articles and edits I intend to make - but that I haven't entered in Wikipedia becuase they are not ready - and none of them, by the way, are on controversial topics, unlike yours. So leave it alone if you don't have the time, the ability, the knowledge or the access to knowledge. And, as I mentioned to you elsewhere, how hard is it to add 2 quotation marks to an article? Pinkville 02:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, MacDonald may have cited Neurenger, but most of the writing was MacDonald's. Other writing in that article was copied from Frontpagemag.com. Since you saying that you do not know the difference between honest submissions and plagiarism, and that you are willing ot fight over fraudulent material, I see no reason to unblock you. I hope you do not bring this same attitude to your college assignments. -Will Beback 06:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The anti semetism part was used by MacDonald and Nuerenger and the rest was from the congressional record which is for public use and can be located on several websites and it is not owned by MacDonald or Nuerenger. I do not see a reason why I should be banned. I have learned from my mistake and I guarantee that I won't do it again. I certainly do not want to post plagiarized material. But what exactly do you want to accomplish by banning me? You said the reason why I was banned was for POV pushing, copyright vios, and plagiarism. I discussed plagiarism with you. I have had a thousand something edits and I have had three articles which involved plagiarism and I simply didn't know. I didn't feel that it was fraudulent material at the time and it was added in good faith. I will not arouse issues with far right and racist anymore without a consensus which I tried to reach with you with you several times. I believe that I was merely following wiki NPOV policy. The majority of my edits are positive and I believe that I contribute to wikipedia. I do not want to cause problems and just want to move on and focus on other work. I don't see a reason to block me. I have seen the error of my ways and it wont happen again. Cant I have another chance?

Woofie 06:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There are more than three articles - we just haven't found the rest. I asked you to provide a list of others, but you haven't. That indicates to me that you are not really contrite. You write, "...I have had three articles which involved plagiarism and I simply didn't know." How is that you didn't know what plagiarism is? When did you finally learn what it means? -Will Beback 06:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember other articles. Please feel free to show me if you want. I thought plagiarism was passing someone elses work off as your own. I didn't try to pass it off as my own I made citations and added references which I wrongly thought was ok. I definitely made a mistake and I have surely seen the error of my ways. It definitely won't happen again and that's a guarantee. I apologize for the inconvenience I have caused through my policy violations.

Woofie 07:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology. I accept it. I appreciate your stated intention to "leave and it will be settled". That is honorable. I wish you well in your other endeavors, and trust that you will never engage in plagiarism in your college papers or other efforts. You are correct that it won't happen again here because you are indefinitely blocked from editing here. Regarding the POV pushing, copyvio'ed pictures, lack of collegial editing, etc. - well, you had months to correct those problems but did not do so. This project has a purpose, and we can't waste too much time on those who do not agree with it. Goodbye. -Will Beback 07:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How did I have months to correct these problems? I only had 1 copyright vio and it wasn't even my fault and I corrected it immediately. I really uploaded hundreds of pictures and I didnt have 1 copyright vio. I believe that I had legitimate reasons for POV with "far right" and "racist". I had three instances of plagiarism and I believe that is resolved. I dont see a reason to ban me. I believe that vast majority of my edits are good and it was simply a misunderstanding for the others. Can I atleast have a vote for the committee? You said that I would be able to defend myself infront of the committee and I was never able. Btw I am just curious why in the world did you have me write all that when you planned to ban me anyway? It would have saved us both a lot of time.

Woofie 07:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)