0mtwb9gd5wx[edit]

• 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Check requested by — SamX [talk · contribs]
• Four prior warnings for copyright violations on talk page. I've found some copyright violations in their recent contributions:
  • close paraphrasing from this source added to M&M's with this edit
  • Close paraphrasing from this source added to NBC Orange Network with this edit
  • Verbatim copying close paraphrasing from this source added to The Plain Dealer with this edit edited 18:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Close paraphrasing from this source added to Manny Farber with this 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[reply]

quotes & paraphrasing are allowed ? .... 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC) 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[reply]

Soibangla[edit]

• Soibangla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Check requested by — SamX [talk · contribs]
• Several recent cases of close paraphrasing:
  • Election denial movement in the United States: source, diff
  • Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden: source, diff
  • Smith special counsel investigation: source, diff
  • Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign: source, diff, rewrite

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[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[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[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[reply]

Notafly[edit]

• Notafly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Check requested by Scorpions1325 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• For the past two years, I have been working on the Ruigeroeland CCI. I often see this user's work come up when making RD1 requests. Today, I saw that Diannaa removed and revdeleted some of his contributions back in 2021. I also see that Moneytrees warned him back in 2019 about unattributed PD copying. The fact that a such a long-time contributor has had at least 3 warnings since 2019 has concerned me. I looked back at his talk page history and saw at least 12 warnings for copyright violations. I am not sure of what to do from here, but I don't think the copying will stop without at least a firm warning. Scorpions1325 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]