Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Rochelimit

< Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Contributor copyright investigation

This CCI cleanup subpage has been opened because concerns of multiple point infringement have been substantiated and further steps are necessary to address the serious risk of copyright violation from the listed contributor. Listings are not intended to imply a presumption of bad faith on the part of any contributor, as copyright laws vary widely around the world and many contributors who violate Wikipedia's copyrights policy do so inadvertently through not understanding it or the United States' laws that govern it.

If you are here because of a note on an article's talk page explaining removal of text, please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline.

Instructions

edit

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to clean up. Contributors who are the subject of a contributor copyright investigation are among contributors with a history of copyright problems and so are not welcome to directly evaluate their own or others' copyright violations in CCIs. They are welcome to assist with rewriting any problems identified.

If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Contributors who are the subject of a contributor copyright investigation are among contributors who have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation and so all of the below listed contributions may be removed indiscriminately. However, to avoid collateral damage, efforts should be made when possible to verify infringement before removal.

When every section is completed, please alter the listing for this CCI at Wikipedia:CCI#Open_investigations to include the tag "completed=yes". This will alert a clerk that the listing needs to be archived.

  • {{CCI-open|Contributor name|Day Month Year|completed=yes}}

Text

edit
  • Examine the article or the diffs linked below.
  • If the contributor has added creative content, either evaluate it carefully for copyright concerns or remove it.
  • Evaluating for copyright concerns may include checking the listed sources, spot-checking using google, google books and other search engines and looking for major differences in writing style. The background may give some indication of the kinds of copyright concerns that have been previously detected. For older text, mirrors of Wikipedia content may make determining which came first difficult. It may be helpful to look for significant changes to the text after it was entered. Searching for the earlier form of text can help eliminate later mirrors. If you cannot determine which came first, text should be removed presumptively, since there is an established history of copying with the editor in question.
  • If you remove text presumptively, place {{subst:CCI|name=Contributor name}} on the article's talk page.
  • If you specifically locate infringement and remove it (or revert to a previous clean version), place {{subst:cclean}} on the article's talk page. The url parameter may be optionally used to indicate source.
  • If there is insufficient creative content on the page for it to survive the removal of the text or it is impossible to extricate from subsequent improvements, replace it with {{subst:copyvio}}, linking to the investigation subpage in the url parameter. List the article as instructed at the copyright problems board, but you do not need to notify the contributor. Your note on the CCI investigation page serves that purpose.
  • To tag an article created by the contributor for presumptive deletion, place {{subst:copyvio|url=see talk}} on the article's face and {{subst:CCId|name=Contributor name}} on the article's talk page. List the article as instructed at the copyright problems board, but you do not need to notify the contributor.
  • After examining an article:
  • replace the diffs after the colon on the listing with indication of whether a problem was found (add {{y}}) or not (add {{n}}). If the article is blanked and may be deleted, please indicate as much after the {{y}}. The {{?}} template may be used for articles where you were unable to determine whether or not a violation occurred, but are prepared to remove the article from consideration – either because the material is no longer present in the article, or it is adequately paraphrased so as to no longer be a violation (please specify which).
  • Follow with your username and the time to indicate to others that the article has been evaluated and appropriately addressed. This is automatically generated by four tildes (~~~~)
  • If a section is complete, consider collapsing it by placing {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} beneath the section header and after the final listing.

Images

edit
  • Examine the images below. For free images:
    • Does the image look non-free? Is it likely the uploader is the copyright holder?
    • Is the image properly licensed and sourced? Be aware of images that say "this image is licensed under X" without specifying who created it.
    • Do a reverse image search using Google Images. Check the license of the source page. Compare the last modified time with the (Commons) upload time.
    • Do a Google image search for phrases that describe the image's contents.
    • See Wikipedia:Guide to image deletion#Addressing suspected copyright infringement on dealing with cases of possible image copyright infringement. There is no need to open a possibly unfree files listing. Administrators may delete images from multiple point infringers presumptively in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Evaluators who are not administrators may section images into a "deletion requested" section for administrator attention.
  • For non-free images, determine whether each image meets our non-free content criteria.
    • Note that Commons does not accept non-free content.
  • Annotate the listing with the action taken, e.g. if the image was tagged no source write "no source"; if the fair use claim is deemed ok you can write "OK fair use".

Background

edit

 Rochelimit

FWIW, I've found that if a passage in one of the user's articles cites and English-language source and also uses a word that foreigners (more specifically speakers of non-European languages) with a rudimentary knowledge of English would be unlikely to know, such as cantilevered or celibate, it's a good bet that some of that text is plagiarized. This trick has made checking some of the articles like Sopo (structure) a lot easier, but it's still less than ideal working with GBooks previews, and living in Japan as I do, with not as much time to get to the library as I would like, it's a lot harder for me than for most editors to access such sources offline. Ideally, the user would simply tell us whether this or that piece of text was copy-pasted, since (at least for the recent ones) he would surely remember not writing a sentence like Batak Toba house also stands broadly on the ground, while the sopo rises from a narrow base and widens at the level of the cantilevered attic floor. But he's still insisting that he can and will clean up everything himself, which would be easier to believe if it weren't for slip-ups like this? And his lack of transparency regarding the recent articles that definitely do plagiarize English sources I have checked makes me wonder if he has been copy-pasting English sources he doesn't name directly, for example when he finds a source in English and a source in Indonesian or Dutch that both give the same information, he could cite the foreign source inline but copy-paste the exact words of the English source. Tracking down such problems would be almost impossible, of course. But it's just a hunch, and might just be me being paranoid after spending the last two weeks trying to get the user to be more transparent. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse this, the copyvio seems to be primarily from books, so it is harder to check, and will require more time in cleanup than I can personally do. I did a spotcheck after this was brought to ANI and the two pages I viewed also contained website based copy-paste that needed revdel in addition to the close paraphrase issues that Hijiri was able to find. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution survey

edit

Pages 1 through 20

edit

Pages 21 through 40

edit

Pages 41 through 60

edit

Pages 61 through 80

edit

Pages 81 through 100

edit

Pages 101 through 120

edit

Pages 121 through 140

edit

Pages 141 through 160

edit

Pages 161 through 180

edit

Pages 181 through 200

edit

Pages 201 through 220

edit

Pages 221 through 240

edit

Pages 241 through 260

edit

Pages 261 through 280

edit

Pages 281 through 300

edit

Pages 301 through 320

edit

Pages 321 through 340

edit

Pages 341 through 360

edit

Pages 361 through 380

edit

Pages 381 through 400

edit

Pages 401 through 420

edit

Pages 421 through 440

edit

Pages 441 through 460

edit

Pages 461 through 480

edit

Pages 481 through 500

edit

Pages 501 through 520

edit

Pages 521 through 540

edit

Pages 541 through 560

edit

Pages 561 through 580

edit

Pages 581 through 600

edit

Pages 601 through 620

edit

Pages 621 through 640

edit

Pages 641 through 661

edit
Extended content

This report generated by ContributionSurveyor.java at 2018-11-17T12:40:42.297Z.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Rochelimit&oldid=1138420905"