Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-06-27/Society for Mathematical Biology
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Society for Mathematical Biology |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 07:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Unknown |
| Parties involved | User:MLauba, User:Bci2 |
| Mediator(s) | Vassyana (talk · contribs) |
| Comment | History purge undertaken by an admin extremely well-versed in copyvio issues. Leaving a talk page message for the requesting party with advice on where to obtain further advice. 13:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC) |
Request details
Where is the dispute?
On Talk:Society for Mathematical Biology
Who is involved?
A short list of the users involved, for example;
- User:MLauba, filing party
- User:Bci2
What is the dispute?
I initially spotted this article while working down the backlog on WP:SCV, with CorenSearchBot having reported a copying of contents from [1]. Investigating the page, I found it to be a much more in-depth violation, as not only most of the content was directly copied, verbatim, from the source site and its subpage, but the entire article's organization had been modeled after the website itself.
As is customary, I reduced the article to stub size and requested a history purge of revisions prior to that, to remove all traces of copyright violations from the article history, leaving appropriate notes at User:Bci2's talk page and the article's talk page.
Since then, User:Bci2 has removed the histpurge request tag, re-expanded the article and accused me to violate WP:NPOV. He has also changed his story from "there was no copyright violation" (see User talk:CorenSearchBot#The Society for Mathematical Biology) to "SMB grants permission" (see Talk:Society for Mathematical Biology).
What would you like to change about this?
The article needs work, and the whole issue needs an uninvolved review in order to determine both its acceptable origins and its evolution.
How do you think we can help?
Since I cannot seem to get through User:Bci2, whether on the copyright issues or on the other content issues which I pointed out without generating hostility, I would like a neutral third-party to examine my course of actions as well as the article, to determine whether a history purge up to the point of the nomination is required to remove copyright violations, and to help identify whether the article needs changes in order to meet our guidelines.