Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Mztourist

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.

Background

Mztourist

Mztourist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Check requested by Nikkimaria (talk)
- Geoje POW Camp. Compare for example this set of edits and this source
  - Its not clear to me how I'm supposed to respond, in one block or after each point, so I will adopt the latter approach. I appreciate that there may be some close paraphrasing which I am happy to reword (as I suggested when reverting Nikkimaria's deletion), however it doesn't justify deleting all additions to the article. There seems to be no AGF here Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's AGF, but there's also WP:AGFC: we assume you didn't intend to do anything wrong, but where something is or is likely a copyright issue it gets removed without discussion. In cases like this where the source being infringed on is not actually cited, it's not clear whether there are other sources being potentially infringed as well. While I appreciate that you've tried to address the issue, your rewording has not gone nearly far enough: for example, "Communist leadership who wanted a strong showing in favor of forcible repatriation to strengthen their hands at the bargaining table" is still nearly identical to "Communist leaders wanted a strong showing in favor of forcible repatriation to strengthen their hands at the bargaining table". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nikkimaria I do appreciate what you are doing and I hope that my actions indicate that I am taking this issue seriously. The thing is that on Geoje POW Camp you didn't just remove the copyvio and advise this on my talk page or the article's talk page, you just reverted the entire article back to as it was before I started working on it, which doesn't seem to be "Good faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices" as stated in WP:AGFC. Thank you for indicating that remaining issue with Geoje POW Camp which I will revise. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Russell L. Blaisdell. Compare this version and this source
- My understanding is that Stars and Stripes as a US Govt publication is not subject to copyright. Mztourist (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't appear to be correct, unfortunately. This publication is authorized by the DoD, but is not an official publication of theirs, and claims to be copyrighted. Furthermore, even where sources are not copyrighted, attribution is required beyond simple citation.
    - Noted, I will reword it.Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
William R. Bond. Compare this version and this source. Note that the editor claims that the original source of the text is PD; I was unable to locate any earlier version and no citation or attribution is provided.
- Source is from a US Army bio, this was the only online version I was able to locate. Mztourist (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Kentucky. Compare for example this edit and this source: "As NVA activity continued to increase in the eastern DMZ, particularly north of Con Thien, the Marines decided to act. In addition to sightings of enemy tanks, Marine fighter pilots and aerial observers reported spotting trucks, truck parks, camouflaged revetments, storage bunkers, and trenchlines. Of special interest were repeated sightings of low, slow moving lights during hours of darkness which, it was assumed, came from enemy helicopters thought to be resupplying forward positions with high priority cargo such as ammunition and medical supplies or conducting medevacs" vs "With enemy activity in the eastern DMZ, particularly north of Con Thien, on the rise, General Davis decided to act. In addition to sightings of enemy tanks, Marine tactical fighter pilots and aerial observers reported spotting trucks, truck parks, camouflaged revetments, storage bunkers, and trenchlines. Of special interest were repeated sightings of low, slow moving lights during hours of darkness which, it was assumed, emanated from enemy helicopters or some other vertical takeoff and landing aircraft. The enemy, it was thought, 'might well be using aircraft to resupply forward positions with high priority cargo such as ammunition and medical supplies or conducting medevacs'"
- Source is a U.S. Marine Corps history and my understanding is that as a US Govt publication is not subject to copyright.Mztourist (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geneva Conference (1954). Compare for example this edit and this source: "the integrity of Cambodia and Laos including removal of Viet Minh forces, preserving the southern half of Vietnam and preferably an enclave in the Red River Delta, no provision that would risk the loss of retained areas to Communists and the possibility of ultimate reunification" vs "the integrity of Cambodia and Laos and assure the removal of Viet Minh forces; preserve the southern half of Vietnam and ideally an enclave in the Red River Delta; include no provisions that would risk the loss of the retained area to Communist control; and include the possibility of the ultimate reunification". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I appreciate that my paraphrasing is too close and I will reword thisMztourist (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are close to 400 articles within the scope of this (potential) CCI. I'm inclined to open it. I think there are likely to be too many examples of erroneous copying from a source under the mistaken belief it is public domain, and too many examples of close paraphrasing from obviously non-free sources, to let it slide. As for the latter, this edit, which I assume was based on this (uncited) source (but correct me if that assumption is wrong; I note that website itself seems to get uncomfortably close in phrasing to this book) is a good example of why I think a full CCI is warranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The example you use has already been addressed above. Wikipedia in its entirety is just the paraphrasing of numerous reliable sources. I have not set out to deliberately copyio non-free sources and will happily revise any copvio breaches or too close paraphrasing that are identifiedMztourist (talk) 04:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]