Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:39, 21 November 2012 editMER-C (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators250,808 edits →Requests: comment← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:24, 24 November 2012 edit undoDanish Expert (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users11,914 edits →Requests: replyNext edit →
Line 29:		Line 29:
	::That sounds reasonable, though it might be helpful if you weighed in on whether copying a "common standard technical description" or a "topical list" from a source without the use of quotation marks is a copyright violation. Edits like , made after the CCI report was filed, seems like a copyvio of to me, but Danish Expert disagrees. ] (]) 19:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)		::That sounds reasonable, though it might be helpful if you weighed in on whether copying a "common standard technical description" or a "topical list" from a source without the use of quotation marks is a copyright violation. Edits like , made after the CCI report was filed, seems like a copyvio of to me, but Danish Expert disagrees. ] (]) 19:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
	:::In those cases, I suggest the use of quotation marks. ] 12:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)		:::In those cases, I suggest the use of quotation marks. ] 12:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
			::::In fact I already did use the "italic quotation marks" for the new , that TDL raised his concern about in the reply above, so I consider that edit to be perfect straight from the start without any need for correction. By the way, I have today now also added the same italic quotation marks to the , which TDL raised his concern about from the start. And to remove all uncertainty now also reformulated the identical "technical description" , where it should be noted it was only the first out of my seven lines previously being identical with the source - and now all seven lines are different. In regards of the new problem discovered by MER-C with ]/], I sincerly appoligy. Clearly that was a genuine "copy mistake" on my behalf, where I forgot to reformulate the content after I had copied the lines from the source. It was a huge mistake, and I am kind of chocked that it slipped my attention back then ''(only excuse is that my edit back then was made "on the fly", where I first copied the lines to an open edit-window, then went on to read a lot of other webpages to check some further content issues, and when returning to save the edit had forgot not to reformulate the lines with my own words).'' I have immedeately solved the problem in both articles (where the paragraphs are close to being identical): / . I can guarantee to have an entirely clean record during the past month, and of course will now -as you kindly asked me to- also begin to check if I accidently have uploaded other copied lines into the "Eurozone debt articles" (although I sincerly doubt having made any additional mistakes, compared to what has already been reported here in our long discussion). :-) Best regards, ] (]) 15:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
	</div>		</div>

Revision as of 15:24, 24 November 2012

"WP:CCI" redirects here. For Misplaced Pages's policy regarding contributory copyright infringement, see Misplaced Pages:Copyrights § Linking to copyrighted works.

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Contributor copyright investigations Shortcut

WP:CCI

Skip to: Instructions • Requests for investigations • Open investigations

Contributor copyright investigations (CCI) is a process for identifying users who have repeatedly committed copyright violations over long periods of time and review their contributions for any remaining issues. A CCI begins when an editor notices a large-scale pattern of copyright violations from a user and files a case request. Administrators or copyright clerks review the request and may open a full survey of their contributions, which will be reviewed and removed if suspected or confirmed to be a copyright violation.

CCI is intended for large-scale systematic copyright violations only. Persistent unattributed copying within Misplaced Pages or from compatibly licensed sources and translations from sister projects may also be raised here. To list individual articles or files for evaluation, see Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems or Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion; however, attempting resolution is not required prior to filing a CCI request.

When and how should a CCI be started?

At least five instances of clear copyvios (copy/pasting of unlicensed third party material; clear derivative works) is required to file a case. More may be required for issues like copying within Misplaced Pages or plagiarism from free sources. There are no other requirements for filing a CCI request, but listing diffs, sources, and warnings clearly and concisely is recommended.

New cases should be filed by placing the {{subst:CCI-request}} underneath the requests header below.

{{subst:CCI-request
|user = the user subject to the CCI
|evidence = your reasoning for opening the case
}}

Please remember to remain civil. Most contributors violate copyright policies due to misunderstandings rather than malicious intent. While it may be necessary to intervene to prevent future copyright issues, treating individuals discourteously is unhelpful. Good faith requests are welcome even if they should prove mistaken. However, this is a serious allegation and should not be made without evidence. Requests without evidence may be interpreted as harassment and will be removed by administrators or clerks.

After submitting a case, please notify the contributor by adding {{subst:CCI-notice}} ~~~~ to the bottom of their talk page. It is not necessary to notify individuals who are currently blocked for copyright infringement, even if temporarily.

Review of CCI requests

Further information: Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions

A copyright clerk or admin will review the request and determine if a full case is needed based off of the evidence presented, responses by the editor subject to a request, and their own brief survey. Clerks may request that an administrator review deleted contributions where necessary. If the evidence does not substantiate the concern, the CCI request will be declined, and then archived.

If a user has requested evaluation of your contributions here, please remember that the purpose of CCI is not to harass or embarrass you, but to keep Misplaced Pages compliant with copyright laws. If you believe that your contributions are not a copyright problem under Misplaced Pages's policies, please succinctly provide your rationale. If the user who made the request is proven mistaken, the request will be declined with a note. However, if a case is opened, you may best demonstrate your willingness to comply with Misplaced Pages's copyright policies by helping to identify and address the copyright issues you have caused.

Accepted cases

Upon accepting a case, a clerk or admin will create the appropriate contributor survey subpage and then populate the contribution data.

If contributors have been proven 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 thus removed indiscriminately, in accordance with our copyright violation policy. CCI tries to avoid significant collateral damage and generally reviews each article carefully, but presumptive wholesale removal is used if the effort required to review is much higher than reasonably expected.

To participate in cases, follow the link of one of the open cases. All contributors with no outstanding history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to clean up, and users who are listed here are encouraged to help clean up their own materials. Users subject to a CCI will not receive notices of articles or images that are deleted or blanked for copyright concerns during the investigation.

The {{y}} and {{n}} templates are used to confirm whether the edit was a copyright issue. The {{?}} template is used to indicate that the edit has already been either deleted or completely rewritten, and therefore not worth the effort. Upon completion, the CCI case will be archived.

Requests

Please add any suspected infringers below, following the format at How should a case be filed? above. A CCI clerk or administrator will review your request according to the instructions, then either open the case or close it.

Danish Expert

Danish Expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Reported by TDL (talk)
I've found several cases of copyvios in this editors recent history:
Danish Expert: "To complete ratification at the political level, the adopted law however still requires the signature of the known eurosceptic president Václav Klaus, who appears to be delaying the ratification, although his office so far made no public statement on his intention to assent."

Source: "The adopted law still requires the signature of the known eurosceptic president Vaclav Klaus, who appears to be delaying the ratification although his office made no public statement on his intention to conclude the internal ratification process."

DE: "...the state managed to exchange €3.76 billion of bonds due in September 2013 with a yield to maturity of 3.10%, in exchange for the same value of securities maturing in October 2015 with a yield to maturity of 5.12%. Before the bond exchange, the state had a total of €9.6 billion outstanding notes due in 2013..."

S: "The agency bought 3.76 billion euros of bonds due in September 2013 with a yield to maturity of 3.1 percent in exchange for the same value of securities maturing in October 2015 with a yield to maturity of 5.12 percent, the Lisbon-based IGCP said on Wednesday. Before Wednesday’s bond exchange, the notes due in 2013 had 9.6 billion euros outstanding."

DE: "On June 6, an arrest warrant was issued for Golden Dawn (XA) spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris after he attacked two female parliamentary candidates on a live talk show on ANT-1 TV. In a heated political debate, Kasidiaris threw water at SYRIZA’s Rena Dourou and then repeatedly slapped Communist Party hopeful Liana Kanelli, before the TV signal got abrupted."

S: "An arrest warrant has been issued for Chrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn) spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris after he attacked two female parliamentary candidates on a live talk show on ANT-1 TV. Kasidiaris threw water at SYRIZA’s Rena Dourou and then repeatedly slapped Communist Party hopeful Liana Kanelli during a political debate."

DE: " The first extra €0.6bn of increased savings in 2013 are likely to come from the scrapping of the Christmas, Easter and summer payments that civil servants receive ... report had showed Greeks paid about $1bn more per year for fuel than they should."

S: "The extra savings are likely to come from the scrapping of the Christmas, Easter and summer payments that civil servants receive. ... report indicated that Greeks paid about $1 billion more per year for fuel than they should."

DE: "Liberalization of so-called closed professions. Deregulation of goods, services and energy markets. Creation of a new body to manage state procurements. Merging of all health insurance providers with the National Organization for Healthcare Provision (EOPYY)."

S: "liberalization of so-called closed professions, the deregulation of goods, services and energy markets, the creation of a new body to manage state procurements and the merging of all health insurance providers with the National Organization for Healthcare Provision (EOPYY)."

Many of these diffs also contaion overly WP:Close paraphrasing which I believe constitute copyvios. TDL (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I can see TDL managed to find 5 lines among my 5000 lines added during the past 6 months, where there indeed IMHO for 3 of them (reported example 1+3+4) perhaps could be a concern about copyright issues. Thus I have now today rephrased or added the needed quotation marks for them, in order to remove the issues. I promise to be extra carefull in the future to avoid making similar kind of mistakes. But I want to emphasize, that I recently added many new lines to Misplaced Pages entirely formulated with own words, and in regards of the example 1+3+4 reported by TDL they only concerned some 1-line sentences, where I admitted failed to correctly list some proper quoatation marks for the repeated words. If you invistigate the nature of the info in those 3 examples, you will find the best way to reflect this info is indeed by citing the words of the source with quotation marks, as the lines deal with some press reports about something not 100% surely set in stone, meaning their claims are best to display at Misplaced Pages by citing them with quotation marks, rather than reformulate their claims and possibly causing a disturbance to the exact info provided by the source. This is also why I in the reported 3 examples, also at first left so many identical words in the upload to Misplaced Pages (with the intend to keep my upload as neutral and accurate/true to the source as possible). My mistake was admittedly, that I forgot to use some proper quotation marks for it, but this has now been fixed. In regards of the reported example 2, it is a very factual line almost impossible to rephrase with other words, and I bet you can find several identical articles with the exact same line uploaded to the internet, and thus IMHO that specific example do not constitute a copyright violation. In regards of example 5, this IMHO does not constitute a copyright violation because of the format of the content, actually being a check list of the remaining "need to be solved" points in the ongoing negotiations between the Troika and Greek government (which is impossible to formulate otherwise, due to being listed as short factual bullet points; and not being formulated as a sentence/line). In regards of example 1, I already yesterday agreed with TDL on a reformulation of that particulair line, before he went on today to report the old previous version (that only existed few hours) as an issue here; so there is nothing left to correct on that. In regards of the remaining issues TDL reported (example 3+4), I have now today solved both Example 3 and Example 4. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly helpful that you've cleaned up some of the issues that I've raised, however given that I was able to find numerous examples of copyvios in your recent edit history it's very likely that there are more that have yet to be discovered. I only stopped at 5 because that's the standard for launching a CCI. The point of a CCI is simply to identify copyvios and clean them up, not to punish you or anything. It will help us find other cases where you've forgotten to include quotation marks so that they can be fixed as well.

As for examples 2 and 5, the fact that something is factual doesn't make it OK to copy other peoples words. You need to take the facts and phrase them using your own words. The fact that other websites may have plagiarised the content doesn't make it acceptable here. And breaking up a sentence into a bulleted list doesn't invalidate copyright concerns, they're still someone else's words. TDL (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree with you about the need to reformulate Example 2+5. I think we need an third oppinion from an administrator to settle that question. As for example 5, I remain to have the oppinion that nobody can claim a copyright violation for me to add an identical topical list to wikipedia (with the topical words identical compared to what is reported by the article), because its just not possible to change the formulation of the topical list without changing the meaning of the topical words. So for topical lists I think it is OK they are identical, as long as we remember to source the content. As for example 2, I also still think you can not claim a copyright violation to an identically formulated "common standard technical description" as the one you highlighted your concern about. The argument goes, that all authors with an economic education would simply opt to use the same way of formulating the line, if they were asked to make the formulation. It is a pure technical description for a bond refinance market operation (where only the figures differs from case to case), and thus not something you can claim a copyright for. So I insist it is not needed to reformulate example 2. I will now wait for the administrators evaluation of example 2+5. If the administrator points out he disagree with me, I will of course accept to change it to something else. But I honestly expect he will agree with my arguments.

I also continue to disagree with you, that the administrator should open up a CCI for my contributions. I think it was good you pointed out Example 1+3+4 that we now have fixed, but think it is very unlikely an in depth look at all my contributions will be as fruitfull as your targetted search already was. Previously I have used citations and quotes in several cases. The fact that it accidently slipped in 3 cases, does not mean I have a habbit of doing so. I think the administrators time would be far better used, to investigate other editors contributions than the ones originating from my account. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for not getting to this earlier. That said, I did some spot checking of Danish Expert's major edits (~20 diffs). I found a couple of small problems on / but also a lot of substantial contributions that appear OK. From what I've seen, it's mostly the eurozone debt articles that have potential problems. This request is borderline and I'm willing to let it slide if Danish Expert checks his previous contributions to eurozone debt crisis articles for close paraphrasing. MER-C 12:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, though it might be helpful if you weighed in on whether copying a "common standard technical description" or a "topical list" from a source without the use of quotation marks is a copyright violation. Edits like this, made after the CCI report was filed, seems like a copyvio of to me, but Danish Expert disagrees. TDL (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

In those cases, I suggest the use of quotation marks. MER-C 12:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact I already did use the "italic quotation marks" for the new "topical list", that TDL raised his concern about in the reply above, so I consider that edit to be perfect straight from the start without any need for correction. By the way, I have today now also added the same italic quotation marks to the Previous Example 5 (topical list), which TDL raised his concern about from the start. And to remove all uncertainty now also reformulated the identical "technical description" (previously reported as Example 2), where it should be noted it was only the first out of my seven lines previously being identical with the source - and now all seven lines are different. In regards of the new problem discovered by MER-C with /, I sincerly appoligy. Clearly that was a genuine "copy mistake" on my behalf, where I forgot to reformulate the content after I had copied the lines from the source. It was a huge mistake, and I am kind of chocked that it slipped my attention back then (only excuse is that my edit back then was made "on the fly", where I first copied the lines to an open edit-window, then went on to read a lot of other webpages to check some further content issues, and when returning to save the edit had forgot not to reformulate the lines with my own words). I have immedeately solved the problem in both articles (where the paragraphs are close to being identical): / . I can guarantee to have an entirely clean record during the past month, and of course will now -as you kindly asked me to- also begin to check if I accidently have uploaded other copied lines into the "Eurozone debt articles" (although I sincerly doubt having made any additional mistakes, compared to what has already been reported here in our long discussion). :-) Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Gohens84

Gohens84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Reported by NE2
I found that http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_Garrett_County,_Maryland&oldid=324024492 (first version, 2009) has text copied from http://web.archive.org/web/20030314210347/http://www.deepcreeklake.com/gchs/history/G010911D.htm (2003) and presumably elsewhere. Since I no longer edit much and don't have the desire to deal with it, and Mr. Go Hens is gone, I present you with work to do. --NE2 12:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC) NE2 12:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)|}

Contribution survey:

N History of Garrett County, Maryland: (45 edits, 45 major, +95097) Y Deleted and redirected; most sources are deadlinks, and given what we've found not going to play around here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
N History of Deep Creek Lake, Maryland: (7 edits, 7 major, +21273) Y Copyvio removed back in 2011; still not sure if necessary to have own article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Garrett County, Maryland: (18 edits, 18 major, +11551) (+11551)(+2237)(+403)(+199)(+355)(+236)(+2668)(+3479)(+767)(+215)(+858)(+500)(+994)(+2214)(+194)(+965)(+1045)(+411)
N John Thomas Scharf: (56 edits, 56 major, +8673) (+2691)(+249)(+2059)(+156)(+8673)(+289)(+3558)(+216)(+1198)(+290)(+177)(+833)(+491)(+2254)(+2118)(+1384)(+181)(+168)(+249)(+1284)(+563)(+228)(+637)(+281)(+329)(+564)(+1652)(+412)(+154)(+348)(+351)(+510)(+477)(+6365)(+5435)(+3795)(+356)(+1052)(+155)(+372)(+152)(+199)(+154)(+764)(+165)(+1991)(+214)(+192)(+658)(+316)(+760)(+414)
Christopher Gist: Offline, so presumptive removal. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
N McCulloch's Path: Y Cleaned. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Oden Bowie: Y Cleaned. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
ING Group: Y removed MER-C 09:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Capital One: Y removed MER-C 02:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Open investigations

Closed investigations

All closed investigations, as well as requests that were declined, can be found at Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Archive.

Templates

See Category:CCI templates.

Template:CCI: placed on article talk pages to note cleanup
Template:CCId: placed on article talk pages when it has been tagged presumptively for deletion review in one week
Template:CCI-notice: to notify contributors of a new listing
Template:CCI-project: to notify a project of a CCI with which they may help
Template:CCI-request: to request new investigations
Template:CCI-open: to denote open CCI requests, this template should only be used by a clerk or administrator
Template:CCI update: to notify people who have assisted in a CCI that it is finished.

Footer

Put new listings under investigation requests, above.

Categories: