" 

  
 == BrightStarSky == 

 Hi Anna, I see that you have had dealings with . I have just found another copy/paste from a news source, and it is not the first. I am becoming concerned that there may be a real problem here, given the blithe ""won't do it again""/does it again cycle. Have you looked into their contributions in any depth? -    

 :Hi Sitush. Just just posted with a warning. I totally agree. The one you reverted was blatant, and this problem is persistent. I dug into his contribs up to the last post I made at his talk. I will dig some more. Anything prior to this last one, I will revert. Anything after the warning would be the last straw, and should result in a block. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. Best,    

 ::I thought that you might have done a review. Some people are so conscientious. And they are nice to know! I'll try to keep an eye on things. -    

 :::Cheers. Anything after 14 May 2012 I'm not sure about. When I find copyvios I tend to go through all the edits and zap them quickly and stop the editor fast. That way more don't get buried. Thanks for catching list latest one. I'm curious what BrightStarSky will have to say about it.    

 == Post-mortem == 

 Actually, I don't have too much to say. Student reaction was mixed-to-positive this semester, and it seems clear that all the structure-providing strategies worked pretty well. Students most often felt, however, that they received little feedback and had little contact with the Wikipedia world. Some claim they will continue editing; many claim that they will go to Wikipedia for information in future (about which I feel a bit ambivalent, giving their disdain of libraries...). In any event, I will not be returning to the job in the fall, and I don't see at present any likelihood of the project being carried on by others. But it was an interesting experiment, and students who put their back into it had positive learning outcomes... 
    
 :which sounds unnecessarily ambivalent! Many thanks for all your selfless assistance! 
    

 ::That sounds pretty good. Perhaps we were a bit overly absent this time, but the outcome was good. Anyway, we all saw the chaos from too much presence. 

 ::Disdain for libraries is natural. This is 2012. Wikipedia, baby! ) 

 ::I wouldn't call my assistance selfless. I'm part of the BORG, and we're selfishly greedy for product, which is what we got. Cost-benefit wise, it was a good deal, I think. I hope on your end it was worth it. And I hope for the students it was valuable. I hope they continue to edit. Who knows, Wikipedia is pretty addictive. Trouble is, it's not, for some reason, contagious. Odd. Now, if we can just nuke that darn Baidu Baike, all will be well. That whole operation is competition, unsourced 狗屁听说, and pure copyvio. When the world's commerce or government is all under one name, that's very bad. But when all information is linked, that's good, I think. I wish Wikipedia would catch on more in China. 

 ::Best wishes, and we all hope to see you back editing from time to time. Good luck with your next gig, and thank you again for agreeing to this second season. )    

 == Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhaskarmv == 

 See recent comment. All are blocked now.    

 :Thanks so much. Sorry to take it so far, but he was continuing to edit with the sock account against warnings. I guess that ends that.    
 ::I've endorsed a CU to check for sleepers.   -     
 :::Good plan. Thanks. )    
 ::::Don't be sorry. I am the one who's sorry, since I handed out two indefinite blocks. CU evidence will be necessary, I think, to prevent likely future disruption. [[User:Drmies|