User talk:Darius Dhlomo

-I have been led to this page because I found an article which was marked as CopyVio and it was not. Reinstate this editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 11:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, among hundreds, perhaps thousands, of cases of copyright infringement, there is one that wasn't, so we should unblock the editor who created those many cases? And what is more we should do so without even being told what article it was, on your say so? Assuming the article you are referring to is the one you have recently removed a template from, had you looked more carefully you would have noticed that it said "Possible copyright infringement" (my emphasis), and also that it went on to say "this article's copyright status requires review. Your help as a Wikipedia editor is requested." The whole point is that we do not know which of the 10000+ articles this user created contain copyright infringements and which don't, so they are tagged to request help in sorting them out. Some of them are not copyright infringements, we know that, that is why they are tagged to ask for help in sorting them out. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After writing the above comment I have discovered that the original version of this article, as written by Darius Dhlomo, was a copyright infringement of http://politifi.com/Persons/Wladimir-Sidorenko, so the suggestion of unblocking Darius Dhlomo because it wasn't has even less merit than I thought. (Note: That web page no longer contains the text in question, but at the time I am writing it is still preserved in Google's cache.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-"among hundreds, perhaps thousands" - if the only one I checked was tagged incorrectly how many others were tagged incorrectly? Hundreds, perhaps thousands? By your own admission you do not know.

-What is the percentage of articles this editor has been involved that have issues? Where is the list of the article that have been tagged or have issued confirmed. To me it looks like a witch hunt against an editor that is a positive contributor. Why can the editor not be educated about his errors instead of being banished? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 12:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does putting a notice saying "this article may or may not contain a copyright infringement, please help by checking whether it does or not" mean that the article is "tagged incorrectly"? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Second reply. I think you are mixing up Wladimir Sidorenko with his brother, Valeriy Sydorenko. I have also checked the link you provided and that looks like a Wiki copy and the website dates from a time after the the article was created. How many times has this been the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 December 2010

No, I am not mixing up Wladimir Sidorenko with his brother, Valeriy Sydorenko, though someone clearly has mixed them up, since the same text was applied in different places to the two of them. You are, however, correct in pointing out my mistake over the dates. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You of course have read this before commenting, I'm sure. You probably have read WP:COPYVIO as well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-bwilkins, I have had a look at both and I am no wiser. Nor do I believe it answers the questions I have asked about the above articles. Maybe you could help me, maybe you are not interested. Maybe you guys have made your mind up about this guy. I am not here to make enemies or cause trouble. My opinion stems from the fact that I recognise this editors name from articles I read and I was surprised to see this major issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 12:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor contributed many new articles, a handful of which were easily found to contain copyvios. When asked, the editor said "it's no big deal - it was only a few". So we looked further. Even more were easily found. The editor said "ok, may eight to ten, but it's no big deal". More were easily found. With a lack of recognition that the copyvios held Wikipedia in a difficult legal position, and a general lack of recognition that this was indeed "a big deal", there was no choice but to indef the editor as decided by the community. We therefore had to assume that the problem was bigger than we thought because we had no cooperation. In the long run, let's assume that only 5% of his edits were copyvios: 5% of 1000 new articles is 50 potential legal problems. 5% of 10,000 is 500. You do the math. Rather than complain about a valid, community imposed and most definitely required to protect the project block, why not help? Recognizing that one of thousands was not a copyvio is beneficial, but for every 1 you find that is not, you have already seen we are finding others that are/were. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-You know more than me, but I find it strange that you seem to want to condemn this editor rather than save and educate him. I am sure you know better than me why that is etc but it seems unfair to me.

These issues are fixable. The best person to fix them is Dariuz. Why not give him the chance to action these mistakes.

I do not want to casue waves but I have found the responses wholly unsatisfactory. It looks to me that he did not realise the seriousness of his actions but now does. In his above post he said "I did learn my lesson after this block (and reading the rage-and-anger-comments posted earlier on). Caution will be my second name." Surely he can be educated and become productive. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 13:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the whole history? Seen all of his denials and evasions? Seen the good faith efforts to give him every chance, and to consider unblocking? Seen how he responded to those approaches? If you have then of course you may still disagree with the consensus view, but to describe that view as a "witch hunt" and to suggest that people "want to condemn this editor" does not seem to me to be supported by the evidence. I can speak only for myself, but I spent a huge amount of time studying the editor's editing history, reading everything that had ever been posted on this talk page, and so on and so on, and wrote at some length in an attempt to help the user understand what the problems were. I can assure you that I have come to the conclusion I have in perfectly good faith, after an honest attempt to find any basis at all for unblocking. You may have read all the relevant history as thoroughly as I have and come to a different opinion, in which case you are welcome to express your dissenting opinion, but I invite you to accept my good faith, rather than accusing me of taking part in a "witch hunt" and of "want[ing] to condemn this editor". Nor do I see any evidence at all that any of the other people involved have acted in bad faith or been prejudiced against this editor. One of them even briefly unblocked the editor, and at least one other indicated willing to do so, only to change their mind in the light of the editor's behaviour. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-I have seen some of this but I have also seen that this editor has now taken responsibility for his actions and acknowledges the gravity of the issues at hand and has promised that they will alter their approach to editing. Given his previous impeccable record over a number of years I think he should be given a chance to proven that he has learned for the experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 11:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Impeccable record????" They spent years putting Wikipedia in a dangerous legal position - this was not something that only happened over the last 2 weeks of their Wikipedia career - it was a part of their character, not a minor slip up. They have an opportunity to become unblocked - provided they have neither socked, WP:MEAT, or otherwise WP:EVADE this block in any way shape or form for an absolute minimum of 6 months to a year. They then will need to appeal directly to WP:ARBCOM - some random new editor (who may indeed be a sock - which would 100% invalidate any chance to return) - who has completely failed to read the background information - posting on their talkpage is not going to magically undo that damage. Let me repeat: there is nothing that can be posted on this talkpage that will induce an unblock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-OK right, so now I am him. Sounds like you are a bit too biased and involved to be judge and jury with this guy. I will leave it at that, but good luck to the guy. Just my opinion of course. Ta ra! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suarez Mason (talk • contribs) 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]