A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
This request for comment was filed at 00:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC). Having been endorsed within 48 hours it has met the threshold for consideration by the community.
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
At times, Vintila contributes to articles in absolutely flawless, perfectly punctuated English. When he needs to express himself in response to questions, though (and also in some of his contributions), his English is simply good, but definitely imperfect, non-native English. This pattern seems very suspicious in terms of possible plagiarism.
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
Added by Dahn on December 18:
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute} I hesitate to bring this RFC, because up until recently I simply considered Vintila Barbu a good contributor, but recently Dahn raised issues that some of Vintila's edits suggest possible plagiarism, and when I addressed the question to Vintila, his response only raised my level of concern.
It is possible that there is a perfectly innocent explanation, and I hope this is the case, but at this point my level of concern is high enough that I think an RFC is the correct way to deal with this.
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
I'm not sure I understand why the concern is troubling. Yes, his English is obviously better when contributing to articles. But what does that prove? Almost everybody I know spells and uses grammar much better when writing formally than when just informally writing things to other people over the internet. For some people, it takes lots of time to write correctly, so they only do it when it is required for some reason or another, and don't otherwise. Chatspeak came from people not caring about proper English when informally communicating over the Internet. So without many concrete examples of plagarism, I don't see a reason to think it's a problem. - Amarkov blah edits 21:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Users who endorse this summary:
As discussed above, Vintila's refusal to actually deny the accusation of plagiarism was particularly troubling to me. He has now done so [1], although he has chosen to do so on his own user talk page, apparently because he refuses to participate in this RFC. In those remarks, he also explcitly cites his source for the edit that Dahn complained about. I feel a lot better about the situation given that we are out of " non-denial denial" mode. I take it that Dahn probably still has an issue, and clearly Vintila now has an issue with Dahn. I'd suggest that they should seek mediation, since they are both significant contributors to articles in the same subject matter areas, and will continually be crossing paths. - Jmabel | Talk 03:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Vintila denies plagiarism, and no source has been identified. The paragraph is currently unreferenced. There bein no evident way to progress from here, all parties appear content to move on. Guy ( Help!) 21:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC) reply
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.