Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Greenock125

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

Greenock125

Greenock125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Check requested by jp×g
User was recently indeffed for doing some fairly bad and obvious copyvios. On a lark, I looked through their created articles, and found that a number of them were sus. Most of them seem like good articles otherwise (well-written, adequately referenced, have substantial non-sus content etc) but a lot of them have either content copypasta'd from other sites without proper attribution, or excessively long blockquotes (basically an entire review in some cases). I have made a huge ass list of all of them at User:JPxG/CCI links (which has the Earwig link, article link and edit link for the thousand-and-some articles created by this user) and started going through them. Tonight I managed to go over the first fifty; most of them were just very long quotations from music reviews (which I either trimmed heavily or removed altogether). I am perfectly content to go through the rest of them myself, but I figure it warrants mentioning here because other people might want to lay eyes on it as well. jp×g 13:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC) jp×g 13:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've now gotten through the first hundred. jp×g 16:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Now I've gotten through 200. There is a lot less copypasta from review sites down here; I guess I'll just have to see what the rest of the list holds. jp×g 18:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

250. jp×g 19:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three hundred. jp×g 19:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four hundred. jp×g 21:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Five hundred. jp×g 21:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Six hundred and fifty. I am not seeing anywhere near as many pages that need attention now. jp×g 21:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything up to #900 on my list has been reviewed and either cleared or copyedited. Earwig's tool (or Toolforge itself) decided to start crapping the bed halfway through this batch, so for the last half I could only search the citations and not the wider web -- although hitherto I hadn't found any copyvio material outside of cited articles. This means that a good half-or-more of the N articles listed here are a waste of time to check out (when I get all the way through my list I'll come through here and mark them all as complete). jp×g 00:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One thousand. jp×g 15:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1300. jp×g 17:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1500. jp×g 18:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all of them are done now. After about 800 or so, Earwig started crapping out when I'd do whole-web searches, so most of those checks were run with the in-article links. Many of them had high scores due to lengthy blockquotes from reviews -- I've edited them down to where all of these articles score at 40% or below (a couple of them simply couldn't be shortened beyond 50% or so without destroying the content). The blockquotes are the extent of any copyvio score, though (no unattributed text in articles). Any article created by the user can now safely be ignored on this list. jp×g 20:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages

Greenock125

Greenock125 (talk | contribs | deleted contribs | logs | block | block log)

Pages 1 through 20

Extended content

Pages 21 through 40

Extended content

Pages 41 through 60

Pages 61 through 80

Pages 81 through 100

Instructions

Text

Background

Greenock125

Subpages

Greenock125

Pages 1 through 20

Pages 21 through 40

Pages 41 through 60

Pages 61 through 80

Pages 81 through 100

Pages 101 through 120

Pages 121 through 140

Pages 141 through 160

Pages 161 through 180

Pages 181 through 200

Pages 201 through 220

Pages 221 through 240

Pages 241 through 260

Pages 261 through 280

Pages 281 through 300

Pages 301 through 320

Pages 321 through 340

Pages 341 through 360

Pages 361 through 380

Pages 381 through 400

Pages 401 through 420

Pages 421 through 440

Pages 441 through 460

Pages 461 through 480

Pages 481 through 500

Pages 501 through 520

Pages 521 through 540

Pages 541 through 560

Pages 561 through 580

Pages 581 through 600

Pages 601 through 620

Pages 621 through 640

Pages 641 through 660

Pages 661 through 680

Pages 681 through 700

Pages 701 through 720

Pages 721 through 740

Pages 741 through 760

Pages 761 through 780

Pages 781 through 800

Pages 801 through 820

Pages 821 through 840

Pages 841 through 860

Pages 861 through 880

Pages 881 through 900

Pages 901 through 920

Pages 921 through 940

Pages 941 through 960

Pages 961 through 980

Pages 981 through 1000