Jump to content

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Archive/Declined 2024-2029

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2024

[edit]

Soulbust

[edit]
  • Soulbust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Check requested by theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her)
  • I did just come across Soulbust being warned for a second time; the first I saw was by Tamzin at Template:Did you know nominations/Gwen Stacy (Spider-Verse) and then a second time by evrik at Template:Did you know nominations/Bigface. Going through their other DYK nominations, which are generally otherwise quality, I'm finding other issues:
  • In the recent Protect trans kids, compare the original:

    The gesture comes on the same day that Texas governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services calling on its employees and other licensed professionals who work with children to report on trans children and report the parents of trans children to state authorities, referring to “elective procedures for gender transitioning” as “child abuse.”

    to the article's:

    This occurred on the same day as Texas governor Greg Abbott issuing a letter to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, calling on employees and other professionals working with children to report parents of trans children to state authorities.

  • I found a third warning from Pamzeis at Template:Did you know nominations/Music of Spider-Verse – this one is for overquotation, but there is also close paraphrasing in wikivoice. Compare the original the clacking of a computer keyboard, and the motif for the villainous Kingpin Wilson Fisk is performed by a click-pen to the article's the clacking of a computer keyboard being featured in a set piece. The motif for the Kingpin (or Wilson Fisk) is performed by a click-pen.
  • And a fourth note from gobonobo at Template:Did you know nominations/Squirrels on college campuses.

This doesn't look to me like it's intentional: no article (with the possible exception of Spider-Gwen) was too bad, but it does seem pervasive across articles. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess to start off, yeah, I haven't done any of that intentionally. Though I guess that's pretty evident given your comments. I don't see the issue with the one for Protect trans kids. To me that seems like it might just be flagged because of the titles/proper names (Texas governor, Texas Department of Family and Protective Services). Tried to actually condense the rest of it the best I could.
That Squirrels on college campuses one was a result of me trying to make sure the specific parameters of the relevant study (so that study tagging specifically each tree, building, etc.) wouldn't get lost when cited here on Wikipedia. But the concern with that sentence that gobonobo raised was able to be alleviated.
The Bigface one is kind of silly. There are four sources popping up as 32.4% (two of which are used in the article, the other two I hadn't even come across before). This 32.4% is popping up because of a direct quote from Jimmy Butler (example here). In the article, it is written as:
"Originating as an inside joke, Butler called his business "Big Face Coffee", explaining "if I charge $20 for a cup, all I got to do [sic] is get somebody for a good cup of coffee," adding that now out of $20 bills, they would come back "big faces," slang for $100 bills. Butler added "whenever they hand me the hundred, I'm going to be like, 'Whoops, sorry. I don't have change. Thank you for paying a hundred dollars for a cup of coffee.' Never really worked that way but the idea was genius." Butler contributed the difficulty to find coffee as a reason why demand for his was high."
I'll see if I can go ahead and paraphrase that one a bit. There is another source (not used in the article) that pops up as 32.9%, but again it's that direct quote about $20 bills and "hundred dollars for a cup of coffee". The added 0.5% pops up because of "National Basketball Association (NBA)" and so yeah that seems like a silly non-issue to me.
The two Spider-Verse articles a little bit more complex. I think the missteps here (particularly on the Spider-Gwen) were me struggling with paraphrasing plot points. Looking at the concerns Tamzin raised at the DYK nom for that one, the first two and bottom two seem relatively minor.
The "briefly seen with a trans pin" one I'm not really sure how to have better paraphrased that one. Seems like a basic description of what some fans suggested and it's sourced as that.
The "comics writer and longtime fan" one was in the context of this "CNN's Leah Asmelash cited comics writer and longtime fan Zoe Tunnell". That's now been tweaked to drop the "longtime fan" descriptor. I thought that could come off as fluffy/crufty, and maybe unnecessary for inclusion here. Not sure how else to alleviate the copyvio concern here. Looks like the same issue as in Protect trans kids (just the preceding descriptor "comics writer" making it pop up on earwig).
The third one is probably the most apparently concerning, but as I said earlier, I struggled with finding smooth ways to paraphrase plot points. I do think this particular section has since been fixed up; I did some initial tweaks here and Moneytrees came in clutch and further patched it up at this edit.
The fourth "that all spider-heroes must experience" and fifth ones "theories about canon events and anomalies" seem like more ticky-tacky flagging by Earwig. I would attribute this to the plot point paraphrasing struggles I've mentioned. I think it was just a little harder for me to figure out clean ways to summarize the in-universe context at least on my first sort-of wave of working on that article. Since this is all a work in progress, I figured that that sort of stuff could be worked through especially with the DYK process letting me know what exactly to kinda hone in on and patch up. Not to mention any organic independent re-visits I will do with articles.
Pamzeis mentioned three sources as making earwig pop up high similarity concerns on the Music of Spider-Verse article. I have removed one of those three sources altogether, and so I'll be working on how to better work in the other 2. The Screen Rant one has a little bit of the silly problems similarly found at Bigface (it flags "Across the Spider-Verse Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (soundtrack)" for example). But this one is mostly just direct quoting. So I think this one can definitely be patched up. Same for the Observer quote as that one is also lighting up due to a direct quoting issue.
If there's anything else I may have missed to address, just let me know. But I think the higher concerns earwig has brought up can definitely be addressed and worked in the article. Sorry for the mess atm. Soulbust (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to decline it at this time. The issues appear minor and have been addressed, and a spot check of recent contributions show a clean log. Wizardman 02:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tpsn98290

[edit]


山登 太郎

[edit]
Declined, the couple article have now had translated page tags added in. Wizardman 01:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IronGargoyle

[edit]
As for the drawing, I made the determination that the owner of the cited Flickr stream seemed to be the creator of it. If they are not drawings by the original architect, the principle of freedom of panorama does not just apply to photographs, it applies to drawings too. As for File:Bucharest World Trade Center.jpg, please check the license history on the Flickr page. The file was indeed licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.0. Creative Commons licenses are not revokable. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The drawing is clearly the work of Boeri, see WP:CIR. The Bucharest WTC file was changed to CC-BY-NC-2.0 on 16 October 2014; nearly ten years before you uploaded it here.  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to pull the WP:CIR card? Seriously? There could be a debate and discussion about the drawing, sure. I would have been happy to have it if you left a polite message on my talk page maybe? (or maybe even notified me of this discussion on CCI?) Do you have evidence that it's Boeri's drawing? It's not signed by Boeri. It looks more like an illustration for a popular press architecture site (i.e., the organization behind the Flickr stream) than an actual architectural drawing. Oh, and don't bring up WP:CIR if you're later going to suggest that the date someone tries to change an irrevocable license has anything to do with the success of changing an irrevocable license. Competence is required indeed. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, FOP doesn't apply to drawings and renderings, it applies to photographs of actual physical buildings/spaces. Second, if you don't actually know who the drawing is by, maybe that's an indication that you don't have enough information about it to confirm whether the Flickr license is valid or not. People upload stuff they don't actually own the rights to on Flickr all the time under invalid licenses because they don't know any better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware people upload things to Flickr they don't have rights to, but I firmly believed that the drawing was created by the organization behind the Flickr stream. Your statement about drawings in general is overbroad. Drawings are allowed (see c:COM:FOP US), but perhaps you are talking more about schematic drawings specifically. If that's what you mean, I see your point. Perhaps I made a mistake bringing freedom of panorama into a discussion of the drawing per se. If the drawing is not by Boeri though, it seems so separate from the architectural copyright that I wonder over the applicability of the architectural copyright. It's mostly a conceptual diagram of how buildings with plants on them work. We could go into an interesting conceptual discussion on that I'm sure, but I'm not really interested in fighting over this one image. More annoying is the colossal failure to assume good faith and that I've been dragged to CCI over one single image that some fairly think should be deleted under the precautionary principle. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Declined, apeears to be a one-off and since most of the images are on commons it's out of scope anyway. Wizardman 03:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yensid98

[edit]
Declined, images have already been deleted at Commons. Wizardman 22:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soibangla

[edit]
There's also this revert of closely paraphrased material from this source and the subsequent discussion on the article's talk page. This discussion on the user's talk page does not inspire confidence. — SamX [talk · contribs] 23:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC) edited 00:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see this request meets the selection criteria of "large-scale systematic copyright violations only" consisting of "at least five instances of clear copyvios (copy/pasting of unlicensed third party material; clear derivative works)." Rather, I suggest it is close paraphrasing that is perhaps inadvertently too close as I strive for concision and precision, and of which I will be more careful about going forward. soibangla (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla: Thanks for responding, and I really appreciate your assurances that you'll take feedback on board. Many of your edits that I checked were not problematic and I agree that you usually do a pretty good job of writing things so that they don't fall afoul of WP:CLOP, but there's enough here for me to be concerned. Part of the reason I brought this here was to get the input of someone more experienced than myself. At some point (it could be a while), an administrator or copyright clerk will do a more thorough review of your edits, and they may well decide not to open a case. If a case is opened it'll probably be fairly easy to work through, since a) most of the sources you use are easily accessible online and b) you seem to be very rigorous about using properly formatted inline citations, which will make it very easy to determine where the material may have been paraphrased from. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am hopeful that given Many of your edits that I checked were not problematic and you agree that you usually do a pretty good job of writing things so that they don't fall afoul of WP:CLOP that a more thorough review of your edits will be restricted to only the specific examples you cite here, before a clerk/admin decision is made to open a more expansive review from which I may become embroiled in defending everything I have ever written, as I continue to contend that this request does not meet the CCI selection criteria, soibangla (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declined. I did a spot check on several different edits over the past few weeks and found no issues. That plus the initiator admitting most of the content is fine makes me more comfortable in declining, so long as the editor is a bit more careful moving forward (which seems to be the case). Wizardman 01:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ItsMeGabeProductions

[edit]

Notafly

[edit]
I also found unattributed PD plagiarism on Coenoteohria salicata. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found another one on Mesogona acetosellae. Scorpions1325 (talk) 10:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the worst this user did is fail to add a source attribution template to a few PD sources then I'm considering just declining this since the sources are PD and referenced, unless you've seen examples that are neither. Wizardman 22:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He did commit quite a few copyright violations though. If that is not enough, then I would recommend declining. Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to decline this-- most of the issues here involve proper attribution of public domain material that get fixed at a later date. I don't think it's worth opening such a large CCI on what will be a relatively small amount of issues. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ribosome786

[edit]

I have tried to clean up their creations but it's not something a single volunteer can do all by himself that's why I'm requesting this copy right investigation, thanks! Ratnahastin (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all there is. MER-C 17:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru

[edit]

Five diffs, but there's also this:

I've got a feeling there's more. These copyvios, most of them over 50k in size, are a pain to clean up, so I'm opening a CCI case. ⸺RandomStaplers 04:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update:
  • Not attributed/cited properly, no DOI or URL in diff. Even though it is CC-BY, it is a copyvio and will need to be rev-deleted.
  • Attributed properly. Stricken for now.
  • From state government. Copyvio. [8]
  • Attributed properly. Stricken for now.
  • Attributed properly. Stricken for now.⸺RandomStaplers 06:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn for now.⸺RandomStaplers 07:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susandema

[edit]

Fmama7282

[edit]

Not exactly sure where to report it, but it's about the extremely large block of text in Arabic on his talkpage, so big it crashes on mobile and does not let post a CCI notice on his talkpage - 1.5 MB wall of text (and that's considering 1.1 MB was deleted, which again, almost crashes my browser and it's now on PC). I have no direct proof of his infringement but several cues in that direction:

  • The user posted 2.6 MB of the content within a week.
  • In the reverted edit, the first paragraph in Arabic, with 150 rats, is copied from here. Didn't bother to check more as I don't understand Arabic and I don't even know their alphabet or whatever you call their signs, I can't even get used to how the browser highlights right-to-left text.
  • The last header on the talk page literally starts from "Chapter 30" of what is obviously some sort of novel. Same for this header (starts from "chapter 15").
  • Regardless of the above, the talk page definitely falls afoul of the rule that Wikipedia is not a webhost, so it should be deleted even if no copyright infringement is found.

The user has been inactive since June. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CCIs are for large scale, systematic copyright violations spanning over multiple articles. This is just their user talk page. I've added the matter to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 September 11 and will consider looking into it later, but a CCI isn't needed here. NotAGenious (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roger that, thank you for your swift reply. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0mtwb9gd5wx

[edit]
This editor's misuse of quotes is also a concern. Excessive quoting using the |quote= parameter in CS1 templates seems to be common (as seen here, here, here, here, and here), as well as very long verbatim quotes from sources (as seen here, here, here) and at least one case of very large verbatim copying into a hidden text comment (here). — SamX [talk · contribs] 05:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
quotes & paraphrasing are allowed ? .... 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC) 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@0mtwb9gd5wx: Thanks for following up. They are sometimes, but not always. Very limited quotes of non-free works are allowed per WP:NFCC, but quotations that are very large, could be replaced with handwritten prose, or that comprise a significant or critical portion of copyrighted works are not. Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and WP:COPYQUOTE explain this in more detail. Paraphrasing can also be problematic. It's usually alright if it's very limited in scope, but using similar wording with a few tweaks or presenting a series of ideas in the exact same order of a source is generally not acceptable. I'd highly recommend reading Wikipedia:Plagiarism and especially Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing for a more detailed explanation. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember the details of the context, most likely I found citations that answered questions about the subject, but I didn't understand it well enough to paraphrase it. Why don't you paraphrase them ? ... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrasing large passages or adding a passage with minimal changes from the source usually means using the same creative expression, which is legally protected. These criteria are more strict than a lot of people realize. For example, the passage you added to The Plain Dealer would probably be better written as WHK (AM) and WJAY were purchased by United Broadcasting Company in 1934 and 1936, respectively. United Broadcasting company was owned by the Forest City Publishing Company, which in turn owned The Plain Dealer. This passage states the facts in a different order and uses different language, thereby using different creative expression than the source. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing explains this in more detail. This particular instance is admittedly smaller than the other diffs I've cited and might even meet WP:LIMITED, which is why I used it to illustrate an example of acceptable paraphrasing. — SamX [talk · contribs] 18:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to decline this one. The paraphrasing in the above only has 1 that was close enough where I'd consider it concerning, a spotcheck of a few more recent articles came back clean, and the user hasn't edited since so no further pressing issues. Wizardman 01:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Archive/Declined_2024-2029&oldid=1245277525"