Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"WP:CCI" redirects here. For Wikipedia's policy regarding contributory copyright infringement, see Wikipedia:Copyrights § Linking to copyrighted works.
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Shortcut:

Contributor copyright investigations is a process intended to identify users who have repeatedly introduced copyright violations into many articles or uploaded many copyrighted images, typically over a long period of time, and to systematically remove this infringing material. The process begins with the filing of a CCI by an editor who notices a large-scale pattern of copyright violation by an individual contributor, and if approved, will lead to a survey of their complete contributions followed by removal of any material suspected to be infringing.

This process is intended only for large-scale systematic copyright violations. To list individual media files or articles for evaluation, see Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Files for discussion, however, attempting resolution is not required prior to filing a CCI request.

Contributor copyright investigations
Copyright-uncertain.svg

(Parenthetical dates indicate when opened. Overview of rough stats here.)

When should a CCI be started?[edit]

As a rule of thumb, at least five instances of clear copyvios (copy/pasting of unlicensed third party material; clear derivative works) should be required to file a case. There are no other requirements for filing a CCI request; in particular, previous attempts at resolution such as contact with the contributor of concern are not required, nor is previous use of the Wikipedia:Copyright problems notice board; see Good faith and copyright.

A CCI is a serious accusation. In general, if you have an on-going dispute with another editor, you should do one of the following:

How should a case be filed?[edit]

A new case should be filed using the template {{subst:CCI-request}}, which is to be placed underneath the requests header below.

{{subst:CCI-request
|user = the user subject to the CCI
|evidence = your reasoning for opening the case
}}

Remember to remain civil. Some contributors violate copyright from misunderstanding of copyright policies or laws. While it may be necessary to intervene to prevent future copyright issues, it is not necessary or helpful to treat individuals listed here discourteously. Good faith requests are welcome even if they should prove mistaken. However, please remember that this is a serious allegation and should not be made without evidence. Requests without evidence may be interpreted as harassment.

After submitting a case, notify the contributor by adding {{subst:CCI-notice}} ~~~~ to the bottom of his or her talk page. It is not necessary to notify individuals who are currently blocked for copyright infringement, even if temporarily.

Please also visit Contribution Surveyor and enter the name of the user you are filing a request against. This will cache their contribution report, allowing us to access and review it more quickly.

Role of CCI clerks and admins[edit]

Further information: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions

To verify:

  • That the case is filed properly
  • That concerns are substantiated - non-admin clerks may request admin review of deleted contribs where necessary if this is present in the evidence. A deletion log citing copyright concerns is verifiable evidence.
  • Through a cursory check of the other contributions, that the problem goes past the evidence presented, warranting wider review.

To follow with one of three actions:

  • Dismiss the case if inconclusive (and take appropriate action if the case was filed frivolously)
  • Close the case if no significant evidence of further wide scale problems are found
  • Open a contribution survey

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to clean up.

The Green tickY and Red XN (created with {{y}} and {{n}}) signify that there was a copyright violation in the article and that there was not, respectively. An entry ? indicates that the original contribution is now gone or completely rewritten so confirming whether it was a problem is not worth the effort.

Accepted cases[edit]

Accepted cases will lead to a contributor survey. A clerk or uninvolved admin will create the appropriate Contributor survey subpage and populate the contribution data. He or she will further notify any relevant Wikiprojects to ask for their assistance where appropriate and post a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Although a user found to be contributing copyrighted material may be subject to sanctions such as blocking in some cases, CCI is not concerned with these sanctions and they are left to other forums.

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. When such indiscriminate removal may be controversial or cause considerable collateral damage, an effort will be made to assemble a volunteer force sufficient to evaluate problematic contributions. If insufficient volunteers are available to manage clean-up, presumptive wholesale removal may be the only choice.

To participate in clean up, follow the link to its listing page. All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to clean up. Additionally, contributors listed are encouraged to contribute to clean up of their own materials.

Closed investigations[edit]

After completion, any CCI case, including those dismissed, will be moved to the archive subpage.

Responding to a CCI case[edit]

If a user has requested evaluation of your contributions here, please remember that the purpose of this process is not to harass or embarrass you, but to ensure that Wikipedia remains compliant with copyright laws. You can best help by assisting, rather than hindering, investigation. If you believe that your contributions have not constituted a copyright problem under Wikipedia's policies, please succinctly provide your rationale; if you choose to do so, do so immediately, since there is no explicit time period provided in this process for providing your rationale - a CCI clerk may assess a CCI request and open a CCI case within minutes, hours, or days of the filing of the CCI request. If it should prove that the contributor who made the request is mistaken, this will be noted and the section archived. If, on the other hand, concerns are substantiated, you may best demonstrate a willingness to comply with copyright policies by helping to identify and address problems.

Once an investigation has opened, your username will be listed, linked to your CCI case's subpage, here (the Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations page) and on the "Main" tab of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup project page, until the case is closed.

Once an investigation has opened, you are advised to watch the investigation subpage if you are interested in what actions are taken. You should not expect to receive individual notices of articles or images that are deleted or blanked for copyright concerns in the course of a CCI.

Requests[edit]

Please add any suspected infringers to the FOOT of the list below, following the format at How should a case be filed? above. A CCI clerk or administrator will review your request according to the instructions, then either open the case or close it.

 BrendelSignature

 Rberchie

I also quickly identified three examples of close paraphrasing from this user:
Thanks. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I am ready to help clean up anything that may be deemed copyrighted. The truth is everything I did was in good faith and I didn't blatantly ignore copyright rules. There were some things which were rather facts and figures and I could only get from the said sources.There are however some articles like Togbe Afede XIV Ivan Addae Mesah which were created when I was not so familar with Wikiepedia's copyright rules.However some of these pages that I have mentioned were even deleted so I do not know the need for them to be revisited. There were some I requested to clean them up and did so Like Tema Development Corporation.I am however sorry if my edits have raised any copyright concerns and I am ready to help clean up the copyrighted problems regards.--Rberchie (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 Danimations

 Corkythehornetfan

All contribs need to be reviewed, I believe. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
[1] was copied from [2]. MER-C 20:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

 Miltonzs

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

 Keivan.f

  • this from here (archived 29 February 2012)
Looking further, I found:
Those edits were made between 2012 and the beginning of this month. I'm in no doubt that this needs to be looked into. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

 Benea

    • It's a fair point, but oddly enough you have the wrong source. The submarines were my first creation when I started editing wikipedia a loooong time ago, when my wikifu was much weaker. I soon became a lot stronger, but in retrospect I am a bit embarrassed by those early articles. I was unaware of the existence of the book Sunken Ships: World War II until you mentioned it there. It looks rather good, but as the writer himself points out, he has himself lifted all the material about the British submarines from another source, the Royal Navy Submarine Museum - see page 224 of the book. The material has been available on their website since 2004 according to the wayback machine. Heden's book wasn't published until 2006. I didn't use the web source for all the submarine articles, by a long shot, but those you mentioned, yes, and probably a few more besides. I was under the impression that as with many government departments in different countries, information like this was being released with no copyright. This may not be the case, but I find it interesting that they appear to have allowed Heden to use it in his book which of course is produced with a commercial aim in mind. Perhaps the RN could be approached to see if they allow use of the work, much as DANFS does for the USN. I don't really edit wikipedia any more, and have no real interest in doing so in future. I want to allay your fears though that I might have 'emptied the entire book into Wikipedia', a book I reiterate I had no idea existed until today. I moved on from British submarines - mostly the S-U classes, by which time I was no longer using the RN's material - but if you want an idea of scope, it's probably only those British submarine losses from the S to U/V classes. Pip pip. 192.41.131.255 (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
      • The site is marked "2015 © Copyright National Maritime History - rnsubmus.co.uk All rights reserved." So even if that is the original source, it is still not public domain, and even if it were public domain, you are still required to give proper attribution rather than represent it as your own work. The right thing for you to do here is to work at fixing the problem you have caused rather than expecting others to do the work. You could start with a definitive list of the articles affected, rather than some vague handwaving about it probably only being submarines of particular classes. As for your suggestion that someone else should approach the copyright holder to ask if they mind that Wikipedia has used their copyrighted material without permission, well, do I need to spell out what I think of that? SpinningSpark 14:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

 Nannadeem

Both of these articles also have other sources being copied. I also found singular instances of direct copying, as with this diff and this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

 Faedra

  • Lionel Lukin, from here; that could have been copied from us, but it'd have to have been during the 10 hours before "principals" was corrected to "principles" (NB some content was split off to William Wouldhave)
All the confirmed copyvios are from the same website, so there's a possibility that the editor was also the author (the eccentric spelling and grammar are not dissimilar); some of that material may originally have been drawn from PD sources and merely require attribution. However, given the evident concerns about these edits at the time, I think this has to be looked at, both for copyright/attribution reasons and because of the very dubious nature of much of the material. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

 Sayerslle

  • Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
  • Check requested by Fram (talk)
  • This editor is indefinitely blocked (a long history of blocks, including sockpuppetry), but has made more than 10,000 mainspace edits and created 165 pages between 2008 and 2015. I noticed a long and old copyvio (minor paraphrasing, but lot of text) at Christ Crowned with Thorns (Bosch, London), which I deleted. Looking at his other contributions, I noticed things like very long translations from French wikipedia articles without any attribution (e.g. here), I think this will be the bulk of the problems.

Looking at his earliest edits, I notice something like this: the source (National Geographic) is given, but it isn't made clear that the text is a nearly literal transcript of that magazine[4]

His long addition to The Men (film) was taken almost straight from a 1973 book[5]. Again, the source is given at the end of his addition, but it's a way too long quote without even the quotation marks.

An edit like this seems to be one copyvio from here.

Even when he did use real quotes, he didn't know when to stop: in 2014 a 66Kb quote farm was removed here; the same quotes had been removed in 2010 already, but reinserted by this editor afterwards. Similarly, the vast majority of the 63K article Glued to the Box is a quote farm from the book. And Taking It All In. Fram (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

 GrecianEarn

  • Comment. I think admin attention may be needed here. This was deleted as G12, and promptly re-created, still with considerable problems. I'm afraid all contribs of this editor may need to be reviewed – please see Vicki Garvin, listed under today's date. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking at this, Moonriddengirl, and for the list below! This is old history now, but what I think was the problem with this particular article is that the "public domain" page by Lisa Petriello is itself substantially plagiarised from this page from 2008 by Ellen Perlow, which as far as I can see is not in the public domain. I think I may have noted this on the talk page of the deleted version of the page (should that be histmerged into the current one?). Does it matter? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Small CCI

Checked
  • Note: this was rewritten by the editor, initial version had some not-too-terrible copyvio. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: this was deleted and re-created without problems. Don't know how bad the old version was. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Not checked
A spot check on Olive Hockin found considerable problems. I think all edits need to be looked at. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

 Huskers110110

This report generated by Contribution Surveyor at 2016-05-04T12:08:41+00:00 in 0.09 sec.


 Psomu800

Psomu800's editing goes back a lot longer, and has been warned about adding copyrighted text to the Great hornbill, Narendra Modi, National e-Governance Plan, Digital India, and CREDAI articles as well. -- Dodi 8238 (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Blocked. MER-C 12:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

 Ahendra

I believe all contribs should be checked. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

 Kh94h

All contributions need to be checked, but there may not be enough to justify a full-scale CCI. They are:

This report covers contributions to 28 articles from timestamp 2015-08-07 19:51:45 UTC to timestamp 2016-04-10 14:23:58 UTC.

This report generated by Contribution Surveyor at 2016-04-20T14:53:58+00:00 in 0.07 sec.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

 RC711

 Transporter Guy

The last of these was created after he had been asked by an admin not to create any more such pages before the matter had been looked into. At this point, it seems that all contributions should be checked. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

 BeeCeePhoto

All contribs need to be checked. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This report generated by Contribution Surveyor at 2016-05-04T12:12:57+00:00 in 0.18 sec.


 DrChrissy

Reply I would like to state that I have not deliberately violated copyright and I have been editing in good faith. I have made all my edits in the belief that my paraphrasing is not too close. I may have inadvertently too closely paraphrased on occasion, and for this, I apologise. I am more than happy to re-phrase material which is in violation (I have already done this today at Theory of mind in animals). I am a scientist in real life and have written over 60 peer-reviewed articles. I am therefore used to paraphrasing what other scientists have written, but I have never before been accused of copyright violation. Sometimes, in scientific writing, it is impossible to state material in a different way without making this inaccurate. I have therefore sometimes copied and pasted a sentence or portion, believing that this was allowed. DrChrissy (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: provides 4 diffs of my allegedly violating copyright.

Diff #1 is paraphrasing. I am happy for someone to assess this and if the paraphrasing is considered to be "too close", I will edit this. Diff #2 appears to be repeating facts, rather than using someone else's creativity. I will edit if required to. Diff #3 is paraphrasing. I am happy for someone to assess this and if the paraphrasing is considered to be "too close", I will edit this. Diff #4 was made on February 23rd 2016. The text is no longer recognisable in the form the complainant accuses me of in copyright violation. It was probably a temporary save which I went back to and paraphrased later.

DrChrissy (talk) 22:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't have time to deeply evaluate, but I will note that a quick review of edit history disclosed the following concerns: [6]. There may be follow-up to that note there; I have not tagged any of the article themselves. I have committed to review another potential CCI today and have limited time. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


Open investigations[edit]

Only clerks or administrators should add or remove listings in this section. Proposed investigations should be listed in the section above. All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to clean up. Additionally, contributors listed are encouraged to contribute to clean up of their own materials. New listings should mention the date they were opened, and listed in the order they are opened.

 20100114; 14 January 2010
 Craigy144; 20 January 2010
 20100225; 27 February 2010
 Razzsic; 7 March 2010
 20100509; 9 May 2010
 Pohick2; 3 July 2010
 20100713; 13 July 2010
 Ardfern; 19 August 2010
 LouisPhilippeCharles; 26 August 2010
 20100912; 12 September 2010
 20100917; 17 September 2010
 Epson291; 04 October 2010
 Md iet; 07 October 2010
 ItsLassieTime; 16 November 2010
 Xpclient; 19 November 2010
 20101122; 22 November 2010
 Dude95; 1 December 2010
 Mibelz; 17 December 2010
 Logger9; 22 December 2010
 Epeefleche; 7 January 2011
 Arilang1234; 20 January 2011
 Ahmetyal; 20 January 2011
 S710; 20 January 2011
 Eurodog; 4 February 2011
 Jpullokaran; 5 February 2011
 Kittybrewster; 7 February 2011
 Wtimrock; 3 March 2011
 24.57.81.185; 10 May 2011
 Dawkeye; 10 May 2011
 Gubernatoria; 11 June 2011
 GVnayR; 25 June 2011
 Bugnot; 5 July 2011
 Djflem; 25 July 2011
 20110727; 27 July 2011
 Hauganm; 31 July 2011
 Arfaz; 3 August 2011
 Marylandstater; 26 August 2011
 20110828; 28 August 2011
 20111004; 04 October 2011
 MusiCitizen; 08 October 2011
 Ironboy11; 09 October 2011
 SameerJaved; 10 October 2011
 SasiSasi; 18 October 2011
 Borsoka; 23 October 2011
 Night w; 3 November 2011
 20111108; 8 November 2011
 Hentzer; 23 November 2011
 Indian Education Program; 26 November 2011
 Jazz3111; 2 December 2011
 20111207; 7 December 2011
 Redtoe; 23 January 2012
 Tiamut; 11 March 2012
 Icetea8; 16 March 2012
 Mushroom9; 4 April 2012 (Completed)
 Wikiwatcher1; 11 April 2012
 20120412; 12 April 2012
 Marcus334; 19 April 2012
 Sfsorrow2; 25 May 2012
 GreenUniverse; 6 June 2012
 98.223.133.112; 9 June 2012
 Judgesurreal777; 23 June 2012
 Patapsco913; 1 July 2012
 YHoshua; 10 August 2012
 Arunsingh16; 23 August 2012
 Striver; 4 September 2012
 Crosstemplejay; 28 September 2012
 Hyperionsteel; 10 October 2012
 Cooly123; 1 November 2012
 Ragib; 3 November 2012
 Offender9000; 14 December 2012
 Proudbolsahye; 21 December 2012
 Mondigomo; 16 January 2013
 IWannaABillionaire; 29 January 2013
 Tobyc75; 13 February 2013
 Snigdhasinghsweet; 20 February 2013
 20130224; 24 February 2013
 No barometer of intelligence; 01 March 2013
 Rosser1954; 04 March 2013
 Hantsheroes; 17 March 2013
 Tamravidhir; 25 March 2013
 20130330; 30 March 2013
 20130414; 14 April 2013
 BhagyaMani; 19 April 2013
 20130424; 24 April 2013
 20130425; 25 April 2013
 Gunkarta; 10 June 2013
 Arrwiki; 17 June 2013
 Omdo; 31 July 2013
 67.184.212.160; 13 August 2013
 20130819; 20 August 2013
 Degen Earthfast; 5 September 2013
 20130908; 8 September 2013
 Zictor23; 19 September 2013
 20131014; 14 October 2013
 FreshCorp619; 14 October 2013
 America789; 31 October 2013
 Buster40004; 31 October 2013
 DrMicro; 13 November 2013
 Kazemita1; 5 December 2013
 Aetheling1125; 9 December 2013
 Rivatphil; 12 December 2013
 Premkudva; 20 December 2013
 Purrum; 15 January 2014
 20140127; 27 January 2014
 Nehapant19; 18 February 2014
 Scholarscentral; 28 February 2014
 Carvin11; 1 March 2014
 Chewygum; 2 March 2014
 Dante8; 27 March 2014
 $1LENCE D00600D; 17 April 2014
 Norden1990; 25 April 2014
 DendroNaja; 17 May 2014
 GordyB; 1 June 2014
 Cheeseladder; 14 June 2014
 Trident13; 22 July 2014
 Nconwaymicelli; 1 August 2014
 Superzohar; 10 August 2014
 Kprtqrf06; 16 August 2014
 Zozo2kx; 23 August 2014
 Lactasamir; 27 August 2014
 Narutzy; 28 August 2014
 FreeKnowledgeCreator; 6 September 2014
 InfoDataMonger; 9 September 2014
 20140915; 15 September 2014
 Horsecanter; 14 October 2014
 Gryffindor; 16 October 2014
 El Cazangero; 17 October 2014
 20141020; 20 October 2014
 Weimar03; 20 October 2014
 Mztourist; 29 October 2014
 Swarupskd.wiki; 3 November 2014
 DocOfSoc; 22 November 2014
 20141126; 22 November 2014
 Wysinger; 1 December 2014
 Ajdebre; 5 December 2014
 ProfReader; 1 January 2015
 20150107; 7 January 2015
 Hahc21; 18 January 2015
 Srahmadi; 6 March 2015
 Jackninja5; 21 March 2015
 Rick570; 2 April 2015
 Headhitter; 15 April 2015
 20150430; 30 April 2015
 83d40m; 11 May 2015
 20150513; 13 May 2015
 Grunners; 17 August 2015
 Oanabay04; 25 August 2015
 20150927; 27 September 2015
 Continentaleurope; 24 October 2015
 20151115; 15 November 2015
 Coldcreation; 15 November 2015
 Koala15; 15 November 2015
 Buster7; 22 November 2015
 20151212; 12 December 2015
 ScreamingDuck; 7 February 2016

Closed investigations[edit]

All closed investigations, as well as requests that were declined, can be found at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Archive.

Templates[edit]

See Category:CCI templates.

Footer[edit]

Put new listings under investigation requests, above.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations&oldid=719324308"