Add links

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 contribute to clean up of their own or others' copyright violations.

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=20130330}} 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".

Background

 Gregbard

Okay THIS is in my userspace. So I really think I need to be able to work on drafts freely there. --GB

There are also problems with general paraphrasing, attribution of PD material (see for example this version of an article largely copied from the subject's memorial), and possibly image uploads (current discussion at WP:PUF). Attempts at tagging and removing potentially problematic content have been reverted. I will note that there has been some effort at rephrasing some content, but I think a more detailed look at contributions is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I have gotten this notice, and I would certainly welcome input, but I don't think that any of these qualify as copyright infringements. Facts are facts, and they show up in chronological order, so there is a limit to what is possible. I have rephrased things sufficiently on the sentence, paragraph and overall level. In the case of the one in my userspace, I have to ask is this serious?! It's my userspace. I need to be able to work on drafts freely without people interfering at that level! In fact I am inclined to tell people to mind their own business if it has "User:Gregbard/" in front of it. Talk to me when it hits the mainspace, otherwise there is no claim there.

  • In the case of material derived from a grave marker, I have to wonder in what sense anyone can reserve rights of any kind?!? They are dead, and the object is a publicly readable by anyone. I happen to have my own photograph that I took myself of that grave marker independent of any website. There are other examples on WP of whole grave markers quoted verbatim, so this is not even close.
  • In the case of Jennie Cave, the issue is borderline. The use of "exasperated" is unique language, so perhaps it needs a little massaging, but on the whole I think there is no case there.
  • I have given inline citations on the sentence level. On the whole I think I have done a good job relaying the facts in a non-verbatim manner. Greg Bard (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Unfortunately we are not allowed to paste in copyrighted material anywhere in Wikipedia - userspace, projectspace, sandbox, whatever. You are welcome to draft material there, but it must be your original wording used, from the beginning. The prohibition against submitting copyrighted content appears above every edit window, not just in mainspace. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is in my userspace, there is no sense in which wikipedia has any responsibility for it. If there is a notice over userspace edits, I would call that over-cautious legal activity. There is no reasonable expectation that anyone other than the user will or should read userspace sandbox material. Think about it for a moment. If I want to use profanity, post scandalous material, post material not related to editing wikipedia content, I should have every right to do so with the understanding that it is for draft making purposes. I would call this chilling of my ability to contribute.Greg Bard (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't have every right to do so, actually - many community policies, including those regarding copyright, apply to userspace as well as to mainspace. See for example WP:UP#OWN. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the policy, and I suppose that all I have in my power is to state for the record that Wikipedia has an unwise policy that is chilling of my ability to contribute. If we are to take this standard to its logical conclusion we would be required to have fully formed perfect articles in space that is intended for drafts. Should we expect to have editors who make a project of investigating everyone's userspace with the same scrutiny they place on mainspace articles? That would be a colossal waste of time that could be used improving actual mainspace articles, and it would be interfering with an editor's ability to contribute content that is free of problems. In essence, it removes any advantage to using userspace rather than just plopping junk into the mainspace from the get-go.
In any case, do me a favor and give me a short time to remove the offensive content from Corny Hector's draft article. I will remove it very soon -- I promise -- and I would prefer not to be hounded about it. Greg Bard (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're interpreting this as a choice between extremes. Of course you don't have to write fully-fledged articles in your userspace drafts, but neither is it true that you can write absolutely anything there. There are very few restrictions on what you can write in a userspace draft, but one of those restrictions is that you can't add copyright violations. (The other important one is that you can't violate our policy on biographies of living people.) Hut 8.5 20:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gregbard/Univocality copies from [3]. MER-C 03:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Gregbard

Copied from ANI

I'm just stopping in to report that I have indefinitely blocked User:Gregbard pending any kind of credible assertion that he understands and will comply with our copyright policies or other community recommended handling. When Greg seemed to be unhappy that his CCI (Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130330) was not complete after more than a year on the lists, I took a look and found some open issues. I thought to help knock it down more quickly, but as I often do did a check of more recent edits, only to find more blatant copy-pasting in just the last few months. Greg has been receiving warnings from both bots and humans since 2006 - two human warnings: 2006, 2010 - and should certainly understand that our copyright policies prohibit copying from external, copyrighted sources since the launch of his CCI. Two examples of copying are given here and here. I bring this here in case others would like to review. He indicates that he is being cooperative (and he certainly isn't being hostile), but in my opinion persisting in violating the same policy repeatedly after warning is not cooperation we can rely upon. I can certainly see that he's dedicated, and I'm sure that he's done a lot of good work, but I myself do not believe that we can trust his contributions until we understand why he continues to violate this policy and have some confidence that he will stop. So far, his response has not shown any awareness that his behavior is a problem; he simply indicates that we should come to him when there are issues, so he can fix them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution survey

Subpage: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130330 02  Done Subpage: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20130330 03  Done

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

This report covers contributions to 835 articles from timestamp 2006-11-09 08:45:45 UTC to timestamp 2013-03-28 04:34:36 UTC.

Articles 1 through 20

Articles 21 through 40

Articles 41 through 60

Articles 61 through 80

Articles 81 through 100

Articles 101 through 120

Articles 121 through 140

Articles 141 through 160

Articles 161 through 180

Articles 181 through 200

Articles 201 through 220

Articles 221 through 240

Articles 241 through 260

Articles 261 through 280

Articles 281 through 300

Articles 301 through 320

Articles 321 through 340

Articles 341 through 360

Articles 361 through 380

Articles 381 through 400

Articles 401 through 420

Articles 421 through 440

Articles 441 through 460

Articles 461 through 480

Articles 481 through 500

Articles 501 through 520

Articles 521 through 540

Articles 541 through 560

Articles 561 through 580

Articles 581 through 600

This report generated by Contribution Surveyor at 2013-03-30T05:52:13+00:00 in 66.71 sec.


2013 Articles 1 through 40

2013 Articles 41 through 60

2013 Articles 61 through 80

2013 Articles 81 through 100

2013 Articles 101 through 140

2013 Articles 141 through 160

2013 Articles 161 through 200

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/20130330