Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Zozo2kx

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.

Subpages

This CCI has three subpages:

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Zozo2kx/Top priority Y Done
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Zozo2kx/High priority Y Done
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Zozo2kx/Normal priority Moved to main

The subpages have been formed on the basis of the likelihood that contributions in certain periods of the subject's editing history contain significant copyright violations. If you are assisting with the investigation, please consider dealing with the 'Top priority' page first, then the 'High priority' page, then the 'Normal priority' page.

Instructions

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

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 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}}.
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

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".

Original request for CCI

Zozo2kx

Zozo2kx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Check requested by Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
This is an unusual listing; it needs further evaluation, I believe, as to the best handling. Following discovery of issues by User:DougWeller, User:Zozo2kx came to my talk page to ask for guidance on how to clean up old copy-pasting and close paraphrasing issues. See User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_55#Copyvio. Unfortunately, he doesn't have much time to work on Wikipedia, and these issues do need to be addressed. I've removed copyright issues this morning from Al-Uthmaniyah Madrasa, Al-Sharafiyah Madrasa, Al-Muqaddamiyah Madrasa, Al-Kameliyah Madrasa, and blanked Aqsab Mosque. I have not been able to look into the close paraphrasing issues, yet, which he believes were more widespread between 2009 and 2010. I do not know if they extend beyond that. But I don't want this to fall off the radar, as there is demonstrable need for attention and so far every article I've looked at in Template:Madrasas in Syria has now or has had issues with copypasting. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor survey is coming up with 759 articles. Unless anyone else gets to this before me, I'll see if I can run a mini CCI over the weekend in case we can safely narrow the scope of it (say, to particular periods of time) or prioritise certain parts of it (copy-pasting vs close paraphrasing).--Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - here are my thoughts:

The periods of editing

It is quite easy to break the editing history down into 6 discrete periods, separated by wikibreaks. See [1]. In my userspace I've created a temporary CCI page for each period. The periods are:

User:Mkativerata/Zozo2kx/Period 1 – March 2008 to March 2009 – In this period there is significant copy-pasting of tracts of text from non-free sources.
User:Mkativerata/Zozo2kx/Period 2 – June 2009 to August 2009 – In this period there is significant copy-pasting of tracts of text from non-free sources.
User:Mkativerata/Zozo2kx/Period 3 – November 2009 to May 2010 – In this period there is very close paraphrasing (eg Forestry in Syria and Yalbugha Mosque). The close paraphrasing is so close as to give rise to a real copyright problem, although it is not to the extent of the outright copy-pasting evident in the first 2 periods.
User:Mkativerata/Zozo2kx/Period 4 – February 2011 to April 2011 – This is a fairly small period of editing in which, at the most, there is low-medium grade close paraphrasing, such as Saleh al-Ali, from [2] and others.
User:Mkativerata/Zozo2kx/Period 5 – January 2012 to February 2012 - Similar to Period 4 (eg Abdullah Atfeh from [3])
User:Mkativerata/Zozo2kx/Period 6 – July 2012 to present – Similar to Period 4 (eg Anwar Bannud from [4], which involves what would be quite low grade close paraphrasing except for the fact that the whole article takes the whole source).

All this is consistent with what was already suspected: that there was a significant problem in the early editing history that has become, incrementally, less extensive over time.

The Archnet website

One thing that concerns me deeply is the extent of copy-pasting from one website across multiple articles on Syrian buildings. This has happened in Periods 1 and 2, and to a slightly lesser extent, Period 3. It has happened to the point where, regrettably, Wikipedia has become a mirror of a large part of Archnet's content. It is quite clear that it is not a free source. I think we have a particular obligation (moral, legal, whatever, it doesn't matter) to this website, given the extent of the copying, to ensure the removal of the content as soon as possible now that we are aware of it.

I am not at all comfortable, in these circumstances, with opening a CCI and just putting it on the backlog. Accordingly, I propose the approach set out below.

Prioritisation

I propose to set up 3 subpages for a CCI:

A subpage entitled Top Priority, covering Periods 1 and 2. This would be dealt with by a special process that is nonetheless fully within our presumptive removal policy. That process is as follows. Immediately after opening the CCI I will blank every article on the subpage that (a) was created by the CCI subject and involves substantive text capable of being a copyright violation (eg not a 2-line stub), (b) hasn't already been cleaned and (c) has had no other significant contributions, with a template that links to a single page explaining the blanking. I'll then list them all on a special daily listing at WP:CP. Unless they're rescued or stubbified within 7 days, I'll then post on WP:AN to ask for administrator assistance to delete all the pages in accordance with the presumptive removal policy. The contributions not within (a), (b) and (c) can be covered separately although as a matter of priority (this won't be a big job; most will fall within (a), (b) and (c)).
A subpage entitled High Priority, covering Period 3. This would be dealt with like a normal CCI. Theoretically it could be included in the process I've suggested above, but that might just be a little too blunt. Anyway, the approach to Period 3 can be re-assessed once Periods 1 and 2 are dealt with.
A subpage entitled Normal Priority, covering Periods 4 to 6. This would be dealt with like a normal CCI (ie sit around on the backlog!), although there would be a note to editors to ask them to focus on the High Priority subpage first.

What happens now

Unless there are any objections to this course I will open the CCI in about 24 hours. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. It sounds like a good plan, under the circumstances. Thank you, Mkativerata, for looking at this. I was most concerned that it not get dropped. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've found 2 articles where the citations are misnumbered. Afif al-Bizri starts at page 46, not 40, while a source at Hurrian foundation pegs starts at page 374, not 494. Therefore, be on the lookout for wrong page numbers in book citations. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked articles

You may have come across an article that has been blanked, and the template on the article has directed you here. The article has been identified as being of very high risk of containing copyright violations. It has been listed at the copyright problems noticeboard and could be deleted on or after 31 August 2014. If you don't think the article contains copyright violations, or if you want to rewrite the article, please leave a note to that effect under the article's listing at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014 August 23#Articles from the Zozo2kx CCI.

This report covers contributions to 333 articles from timestamp 2011-02-03 09:57:50 UTC to timestamp 2014-07-03 21:24:51 UTC.