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

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 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

  • 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

Richlevine00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This case has been opened subsequent to a CorenSearchBot tagging of an article, Thomas L. Sloan, for similarity to a website, [1]. In subsequent conversation, it was revealed that both the article and the website had copied content from a book (see [2]). Subsequent investigation has disclosed copying of content from other books and websites (see [3]). Complicating matters, while it seems that the editor has cited his sources, he has also cited his source's sources, which may make it appear as though a passage of text is derived from somewhere other than it was.

Images also need review, as they seem to have been tagged as though date of photograph equated to date of publication, and many of them lack sufficient information for us to determine their copyright status. See the first three listings at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 October 19, for example, including the first, wherein the editor cropped out the copyright watermark before uploading the picture to Wikipedia.

The lack of access to print sources used is likely to complicate this cleanup. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a great many images have been scanned from print publications and tagged with speculation as to date of original publication and copyright status. Barring proof of prior publication, first date of publication must be judged to the date of the print work that featured them. Family photographs in particular are often unpublished. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Moonriddengirl. The pictures need to be determined when they were first published. Creation is not the same as published. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution survey

Richlevine00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This report covers contributions to 79 articles from timestamp 2011-06-07 21:51:34 UTC to timestamp 2014-10-06 18:18:24 UTC.

Articles 1 through 20

Articles 21 through 40

Articles 41 through 60

Articles 61 through 79

Uploads

Uploads to en.wikipedia.org

Local files 1 to 20

Extended content

Local files 21 to 40

Local files 41 to 60

Local files 61 to 80

Local files 81 to 100

Local files 101 to 120

Local files 121 to 140

Local files 141 to 160

Local files 161 to 180

Local files 181 to 200

Local files 201 to 220

Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20141020
No tags for this post.