Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Corkythehornetfan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Concluding remarks[edit]

I would like the record to show that I've worked on a number of CCI's, and in all cases we invite the editor involved to participate in the process. The result of that invitation has varied. At one extreme, the editor disappears and is never heard from again. Some editors participate to some extent but with feet dragging and eventually disappear. While it is easy to understand that an editor may be embarrassed about the existence of the CCI and working on it just is a reminder of an unpleasant situation, the work needs to get done and it is helpful to have the subject editor involved.

I want to commend Corky's involvement as exemplary.

There was no disagreement that the problems identified were real or pushback that the entire body of work needed examination. There was an understanding that copies of material such as history and about us sections, even though it was plausible that the copyright holder might not only agree but be pleased that it was used, were nevertheless inappropriate without proper licensing. Corky voluntarily reviewed quite a few articles and made corrections on their own volition. In a number of situations, my review identified some questions best answered by Corky and Corky was very responsive.

I am convinced that Corky has a better grasp of the copyright rules now and will continue to be a great contributor.

I'll also make a shout out to @Diannaa:. CCI cleanup is boring, mindnumbing work. I honestly don't know why I do it, but when I decide to put in the little time looking at it, seeing that someone else had handled some of the issues was a pleasant surprise, and gave me the impetus to continue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finished

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]

All contribs need to be reviewed, I believe. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[1] was copied from [2]. MER-C 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw several additional issues on a quick check. Opening a CCI. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution survey[edit]

This report covers contributions to 897 articles from timestamp 2012-06-25 05:45:42 UTC to timestamp 2015-11-07 21:19:21 UTC.

Please Note: If anyone chooses to double check my work please note that there are a number of situations where the editor has reverted to an earlier version — in some cases an improper blanking of an article, in other cases either accidental or deliberate removal of sections. The restoration of previously removed material seems to trigger Earwig. I've labeled some of these using "restoration of improper blanking or removal" but I may not have labeled every such situation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Articles 1 through 20[edit]

Section complete

Articles 21 through 40[edit]

Section complete

Articles 41 through 60[edit]

Seven issues identified, all resolved

Articles 61 through 80[edit]

Section complete

Articles 81 through 100[edit]

Thirteen issues identified, all resolved

Articles 101 through 120[edit]

Thirteen issues identified, all resolved

Articles 121 through 140[edit]

Ten issues identified, all resolved

Articles 141 through 160[edit]

Eleven issues identified, all resolved

Articles 161 through 180[edit]

Nine issues identified, all resolved

Articles 181 through 200[edit]

Five issues identified, all resolved

Articles 201 through 220[edit]

three issues identified, all resolved

Articles 221 through 240[edit]

Five issues identified, all resolved

Articles 241 through 260[edit]

Three issues identified, all resolved

Articles 261 through 280[edit]

Three issues, two have been fully addressed, one letting go

Articles 281 through 300[edit]

Three issues, have been addressed

Articles 301 through 320[edit]

Several issues, have been addressed

Articles 321 through 340[edit]

One issue identified, has been resolved

Articles 341 through 360[edit]

One issue identified, has been resolved

Articles 361 through 380[edit]

Three issue identified, have been resolved

Articles 381 through 400[edit]

Section complete

Articles 401 through 420[edit]

No violations found

Articles 421 through 440[edit]

One issue identified, has been resolved

Articles 441 through 460[edit]

One issue, had already been addressed

Articles 461 through 480[edit]

No violations found

Articles 481 through 500[edit]

Two issues identified, both resolved

Articles 501 through 520[edit]

No violations found

Articles 521 through 540[edit]

One issue, had already been addressed

Articles 541 through 560[edit]

Two issues, one cleaned one not worth addressing. All others fine

Articles 561 through 580[edit]

No violations found

Articles 581 through 600[edit]

No violations found

Articles 601 through 620[edit]

No violations found

Articles 621 through 640[edit]

Article 629 Removed Alma Mater All others fine

Articles 641 through 660[edit]

No meaningful violations found (although see talk re 643)

Articles 661 through 680[edit]

No violations found

Articles 681 through 700[edit]

No violations found

Articles 701 through 720[edit]

No violations found

Articles 721 through 740[edit]

No violations found (although see talk re 725)

Articles 741 through 760[edit]

No violations found

Articles 761 through 780[edit]

No violations found

Articles 781 through 800[edit]

Section complete

Articles 801 through 820[edit]

No violations found

Articles 821 through 840[edit]

Section complete

Articles 841 through 860[edit]

Section complete

Articles 861 through 880[edit]

Section complete

Articles 881 through 897[edit]

Section complete

This report generated by Contribution Surveyor at 2017-05-23T22:33:11+00:00 in 1.49 sec.