Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Epeefleche: Difference between revisions

 Epeefleche

• Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Reported by _wjemather^bigissue
• Persistent addition of material directly copied from this SI article into our Monte Scheinblum article. I removed the content as part of a larger edit (diff). Epeefleche then reinserted the material (diff) which I promptly removed (diff). Yet again the offending meterial has been reinserted (diff). The sentences being added are a clear word for word copy of the SI article but for the change of two words in the opening sentence. Epeefleche was warned prior to the second reinsertion (diff) but has dismissed any notion that this is a copyright violation. Seems perfectly clear to me that you cannot avoid copyright in this manner but would like clarification. _wjemather^bigissue 19:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for bringing this to attention. Just a small point: this isn't a WP:CCI issue - CCI is for persistent infringements by the one person on multiple articles. However it does concern me that an experienced editor does not consider those edits to be problematic. I've reverted the edit and watchlisted the article. I am about to duck out of WP for a week, so I'll leave this up here for now despite not being quite the correct forum as others may wish to watchlist it as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, thanks. However, I believe Epeefleche has been warned for this kind of thing fairly recently with regards to another article. Don't have the time to trawl through their talk page history to find it at present, so will just leave it to the judgement of others. _wjemather^bigissue 19:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• WJE has been hounding me for some time now, for which he has been warned. Most recently, he hounded me to the article in question, as usual editing an article immediately after I did, for the first time. First, he made a false statement as to what was done, asserting "Copyright cannot be avoided by simply changing two words" (that clearly misrepresents what was done), and "almost word for word copy from SI article. Changing a single word (getting to inspiring) is entirely insufficient to avoid copyright violation" (again, that clearly misrepresents what was done). I base my assertion that it is not a copyright violation on the clear difference in the language, and my three decades (nearly) of practicing law, including intellectual property law, in the applicable jurisdiction. I've no idea what his basis is, but just as his factual assertions are false, his ability to construe applicable law seems to be limited. This is a severely POINTy and disruptive string that he has opened, and I will take the opportunity to warn him that wikihounding is not quite good form.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Epeefleche please take some time to read WP:Close paraphrasing and WP:Plagiarism. Wjemather is absolutely correct here and the description of his/her identification of clear problems with your edits as "wikihounding" will not be tolerated. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just took another look. WJE is absolutely incorrect as to the first sentence at issue. As to the second sentence -- I am mistaken above. In my annoyance at WJE's wikihounding I had reverted without looking at it, knowing that I had reworked that sentence in a way that resulted in it, as well, not being a copyright problem. As you will see, I had worked it into the sentence that follows it. I appear to have neglected to delete that sentence when I reworked it, however -- you can see that easily enough, as the same material was discussed in two successive sentence. The second sentence of that para should in fact have been deleted, and I apologize for my haste in not noting that I had left in a redundant sentence. I stand completely by my comment as to the first sentence, however, and as to WJE blatantly mis-stating how many words had been changed, and as to his having done so as part of his disruptive wikihounding.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first sentence is problematic too. It has the same structure and uses the same creative elements. In particular, the use of the term "arm-twisting" is a piece of creativity of the original author that shouldn't be used by us without quotation marks and intext attribution. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I indicated to you previously, the point as to intext attribution: 1) was not the point raised by WJE in his wikihounding; and 2) though it is a judgment call, I accept that as good form (as part of the guideline as to how to cite sources), and would not have reverted him had he provided intext attribution or called for it. That's not what happened. BTW, as you can see, after your comment I did provide the intext attribution. But that's not the issue here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Mkativerata; Epeefleche's edits are not an issue as Close Paraphrasing nor as Plagarism. Specifically addressed in WP:Close paraphrasing where it states "Depending on the context and extent of the paraphrasing, limited close paraphrase may be permitted under the doctrine of fair use; close paraphrase of a single sentence is not as much of a concern as an entire section or article." -all Wjemather is doing is pulling up individual sentences here and there that are acceptable under Fair Use or that are reasonable representations of the information given by the source -"Arm-twisting" is a very specific piece of imagery that is difficult to portray in any form other that metaphor, synonyms for "arm-twisting" either convey less or more pressure being applied not that very specific amount. Also Epeefleche seems justified in his use of Wikihounding, both editors have previous from Andre Geim, but Wjemather has followed and significantly edited or reverted Epeefleche's work on at least Richie Scheinblum, Monte Scheinblum, and The Israel Law Review along with those article he lists himself below. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that significantly, these sources are not public domain (or otherwise free use). They are copyrighted. The question is: do they fall under "fair use"? I have my doubts. (Firstly, I've never edited our Andre Geim article or it's talk page. Secondly, I've managed to improve those other articles you mention despite vehement opposition from Epeefleche.) _wjemather^bigissue 19:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair use is not dependent on whether the source is free from copyright - Firstly fair use is cleared for scholarly works such as encyclopaedias, secondly fair use is valid when the sentence does not constitute a substantial portion of the original work. I don't see why you have doubts unless your knowledge of Copyright Law is primarily based on British Law where Fair Use does not exist and instead Fair Dealing comes into play. On your other points I did not wikilink the Andre Geim article because your previous opinions of Epeefleche in relation to Andre Geim did not claim to be about Geim's article however to quote your talk page I've followed the Geim discussion from afar, and am just bewildered as to why someone would be so hell-bent on labelling someone in that way. - in relation to Epeefleche. Finally you appear to admit uncivil behaviour in regard to Epeefleche but feel it was justified because it (in your opinion) improved those articles - Please read WP:Hound it is not an appropriate way to behave but is an issue for RFC/U not here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Great, all we need is another self-proclaimed expert in applicable law with bullshit reasoning – note that the copied text is not quoted or attributed in any instance. On top of that we have an apparent ally of Epeefleche making the same false allegations (I hear alarm bells ringing). For the good of your own reputation, you should back away and allow the admins who deal with these issues to decide if a full case needs to be opened. _wjemather^bigissue 00:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not any self proclaimed expert, but with such incivility in your reply I don't expect you care. Neither fair use law nor our policy require more than an inline citation when the text constitutes a clear statement of fact even if the statement is worded similarly to the wording in the source. see WP:INTEXT. Wikipedia also has articles on Fair Use and why small sections are ineligible for breach of copyright law which are worth reading. The contribution history of several articles consitutes a Quack and it is not uncivil or a false allegation to claim that the quack belongs to a Duck. I stand by my reputation and am open about my real life identity for that reason, if you wish to create a frivolous SPI about Epeefleche and myself because your alarm bells are ringing then go ahead but you would only end up with egg on your own face. I am happy for the admins to decide if a full case needs to be opened, but I am not happy with your misleading comments and the fact that the responding admin chastised Epeefleche for calling you a duck when your contributions speak for themselves. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • The fact that you do not think these edits are problematic worries me. This CCI request is certainly not frivolous. Yoenit (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Unfortunately it seems my worries were correct: I have just listed a stub (McCowan’s) created by Stuart.Jamieson at wp:CP. I will check more of his contributions later. Yoenit (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • In what way were your worries correct? You picked on my earliest page creation in which I made a few mistakes particularly in relation to a lack of immediately available sourcing at that time. I notice you haven't followed this up with any other examples of my editing, had anyone pointed this out to me as CorenSearchBot did to the sister article Millar McCowan I would have fixed it immediately. Unfortunately no new page patrol did point it out, and it languished there forgotten by everyone including me until you pointed it out now. Had you had the decency to just drop me a message it would have been quickly and fixed without waiting for an OTRS agent to review the fixed version for a handful of words. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • This discussion is not part of this CCI request, I will reply on your talkpage. Yoenit (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The same concerns were raised with Epeefleche in March by User:Slp1 (permalink), by User:Moonriddengirl in February (permalink). CorenSearchBot has also identified problems on numerous occasions although that is not always reliable. Mkativerata has identified some more recent problems (diff, diff). It is clear that this is a long standing issue that needs to be resolved. Epeefleche has made it clear that they do not see the problem with copying large amounts of text so long as one or two words are changed. This is a novel interpretation and I'm not sure it has any legs. _wjemather^bigissue 10:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Some more examples from articles created by Epeefleche.
  • True/Slant (current rev), has substantial text copied (again with some very minor and insubstantial changes) from this reprinted Wall Street Journal piece, particularly in the True/Slant#Contributors section.
  • Muslim Arab Youth Association (current rev) copies the NYT article ([1]) used to reference it "...a Palestinian (policeman) had bombed a Jerusalem bus, killing himself and wounding 12 Israelis. "Allah Akhbar," roared the crowd, offering spontaneous praise."
  • Fangraphs (current rev, original rev) copies the Pitsburgh Post-Gazette article ([2]) "...plots the course of every game, showing which hits and outs changed outcomes."
  • Players Choice Award (current rev, original rev) copies the MLB article ([3]) "The Players Choice Awards are unique because the electorate consists of the players themselves." _wjemather^bigissue 11:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are definitely copyright problems in those articles. For example, from [4]

The foundation denies ties to Hamas, but the FBI says otherwise. An internal memo, detailed yesterday, said organization President Shukri Abu Baker attended a Muslim Arab Youth Association conference at a Los Angeles hotel from Dec. 30, 1994, to Jan. 2, 1995, where Sheik Muhammed Siyam, described as head of operations for the Hamas military wing, gave a keynote address.

"Finish off the Israelis. Kill them all. Exterminate them. No peace ever," Siyam told the crowd

• • • While Muslim Arab Youth Association states:

The foundation denied it had ties to Hamas, but the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) disagreed. An internal memo revealed in 2001 said at a MAYA conference at a Los Angeles hotel in the mid-1990s, Sheik Muhammed Siyam, head of operations for the Hamas military wing, gave a keynote address. "Finish off the Israelis. Kill them all. Exterminate them. No peace ever," Siyam told the crowd.

• • • A singly close paraphrase like that wouldn't be a real problem, but almost everything from those articles seems to be either copied or closely paraphrased from some source. Yoenit (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Yet both of those are paraphrases of a third (primary) source we do not have access to WP:INTEXT is clear that we should not attribute the content of the primary source to the secondary source and further paraphrasing of the secondary source is liable to remove or insert meaning from the original primary source. If the content in question was analysis of the primary source then your argument may have some merit - however the majority of that article is composed of secondary reporting of primary sources not secondary analysis and there is little original content (in the secondary sources) that would constitute a plagarism or copyright violation of the secondary. If these primary sources are available elsewhere then different paraphrasing could be used of the primary source with the secondary used as a cited source to back up the primary, but at the moment that is not the case. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In my view, the evidence presented above demonstrates there is now a need to open a CCI. There evidence of continued plagiarism over a long period of time despite warnings, indicating that, sadly, it is likely to be an endemic problem with the user's contributions. I'm happy to present more evidence but I think the bar for opening a CCI has been crossed. I wonder if content sourced to offline material should be presumed to be plagiarised.--Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wjemather’s complaint is too vague to discern whether there is a history of extensive copyright violations, as he has suggested. Moreover, the long-running feuds between Wjemather and Epeefleche unfortunately serves as a possible explanation for why I’ve had to dig as hard as I have to dredge up a single hard fact. I’m referring to his 19:07, 24 December 2010 opening post. He wrote as follows: Persistent addition of material directly copied from this SI article into our Monte Scheinblum article. I removed the content as part of a larger edit (diff). OK, let’s examine the removed text.

1. The first difference has this key phrase: …190-pound athlete, he was an accomplished golfer who competed on the Nike Tour… But when I search for that string of text in the SI article, I get no hit.
2. The next sentence that was changed by wjemather goes In October 1992, in Boca Raton, Florida, he hit a golf ball 329 yards, 13 inches… But when I search the SI article for that string, nothing comes up.
3. The next sentence that was changed starts with Mike Gorton, the 1987 champion, took second with a drive of 307 yards, 22 inches. Guess what? No match again when I do a search of the SI article.
4. So I tried this one: In October 1993, he came in second to Brian Pavlett with a drive of 324 yards, 30 inches. Again, no match.
5. So I tried this bit: But getting people to turn out for a long-drive event can involve some arm-twisting.. Finally, there’s a word-for-word match.

To Wjemather: You began this complaint by quoting Wikipedia policy: “If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation”… The first thing the community needs from you is less broad-brushed, sweeping accusations and more hard facts. I should not have had to dig so hard to find some plagiarized text. Next…

Epeefleche is a hard-working and valued contributor. He has been the shepherding original editor responsible for extensive works such as our Targeted killing article, complete with the nearly 200 citations. Virtually everyone here on Wikipedia is a volunteer contributor and most of us engage in this as a hobby because it is fun. I’m sure that Epeefleche has learned something about plagiarism and will be much more rigorous in the future in this regard.

But if you want to go beyond the “Hey, you screwed up so drop and give me twenty”-route, and want the community to believe he has an “extensive history” of copyright violations, then let’s see some well-documented evidence of it and not an account from you that you deleted the text and he reverted you; that strikes me as more of an issue of you’re angry and there’s serious bad blood between you two and you are simply out for your pound of flesh.

And if you don’t provide well documented evidence that the project has a problem with “history of extensive copyright violations” by Epeefleche—as you have alluded to by quoting that in the preamble to this whole page—then I motion that this complaint be dropped and would further motion that the community should do something to separate you two. Whereas you might be happy as a clam if the remedy was as you quoted above: …“it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately”, you haven’t backed up such a request with any supporting evidence for “persistent”, “history”, or “extensive.” If you can’t provide that, then you should not have dragged the rest of the community into this wikidrama and should have instead just left a “For shame — for shame —for shame” on Epeefleche’s talk page. Epeefleche is clearly smart and sophisticated to be more careful from hereon once the problem with copyright violations are pointed out. Greg L (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note that this has already moved beyond the "request" stage. The request has been evaluated by an uninvolved administrator and the CCI is now open. I have not yet evaluated any content here myself, but there are already several articles that have been tagged evidently as a result of the CCI. Compare, for one example, this version, with the following content:

One of the tagged sources says:

Jackie totally dominated the abbreviated fight. He floored Dundee once in the first round & proceeded to bounce him off the canvass four more times in the first part of round 2. After the fifth knockdown in that round, Pal Joey, in front of 25,000 disbelieving paying customers crawled across the ring on his hands & knees until he got right in front of Jackie & sucker punched him, right in the family jewels. Jackie twisted & flopped around the ring like a gutted carp before he blacked out from the pain & was awarded the world welterweight title (W-F2). Dundee claimed he was so out of it he didn't know what he was doing ... Yeah, right. Jackie however, nailed the issue succinctly, "That bum and his buddies had bet money on the fight." Dundee knew he was a goner & he also knew if the fight ended on a foul, all bets were off.

This is what he placed in the article:

Fields totally dominated the abbreviated fight. He floored Dundee once in the first round and four more times in the first part of round 2. After the fifth knockdown in that round, Pal Joey crawled across the ring on his hands and knees until he got right in front of Fields and sucker punched him in the groin. Fields nailed the issue succinctly: "That bum and his buddies had bet money on the fight."[1] Dundee knew he was a goner and he also knew if the fight ended on a foul, all bets were off.

I've bolded the duplicated content in the examples to make it easier to see following. I did not bold the quote, since it was acknowledged to be copying. Another source has been flagged as well, and, as I said, there seem to be other articles also identified. Review seems necessary here to make sure that content has been adequately rewritten to comply with our copyright policy (while also a plagiarism issue, copyright is the far more serious concern); this is not about being more careful in the future, but analyzing the contributions of the past. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. As I pointed out above, I found some plagiarized text myself in that golf article. Based on that, the proper response from the community is “Dude! Read Plagiarism and wake up & smell the coffee.” As I pointed out above, there has been a long-running feud between Wjemather and Epeefleche. I’ve seen pitched battles on talk pages between those two and Wjemather has demonstrated before that if anyone can be “persistent” (motivated), he can. If there is a “persistent” “history” of “extensive” plagiarism with Epeefleche, I would have expected Wjemather to have demonstrated it by now. Based on the wording of our policy (“history” of “extensive”), the first place I would look is on Epeefleche’s talk page. Has the issue of plagiarism been brought to his attention before? If this is the first time the community has ever raised the issue with him, then the proper remedy for this sort of thing, IMO, is to see to it that the concept of plagiarism is properly explained to our volunteer contributors. Greg L (talk) 03:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wjemather's post above (beginning "The same concerns were raised...") summarises the past occasions where the issues were raised. To be clear: the purpose of this "investigation" is not to decide whether to "punish" Epeefleche, it's merely to deal with past copyvios. So long as E doesn't plagiarise in future (and he/she hasn't in the past two weeks), he/she can continue to edit freely. But we have to deal with what's been done in the past. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see. Very well. I was alarmed by Wjemather's mentioning the policy that states …“it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately”. That sounded to me like Wjemather thought he had stumbled across an *awesome* new editwarring tool in his ongoing tit-for-tats with Epeefleche. Greg L (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not make any such quote. That quote is part of the investigation page template – it was not in the original report which is now confined to this background section. Unlike some, I'm not interested in persuing grudges, and if my aim was to get Epeefleche blocked or win some fictional battle, I would have widened the circus to ANI. As you've been told, and is abundantly clear from the evidence, there is an extensive problem which has been ongoing for a long time. This process is here purely to help clean up any articles that contain copyright violations, of which there are many. Thanks for all your accusations though, AGF much? _wjemather^bigissue 09:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ahhhh… the ol’ “AGF defense.”

  Fact #1) Exceedingly few editors would go through this much trouble just to protect Wikipedia from copyright violations over a few sentences and sentence fragments dispersed throughout articles that match one-for-one to copyrighted works (*sound of audience gasp*). A few sentences can be far more easily remedied just by revising the offending sentences and sentence fragments. And that’s just what you did. But Epeefleche reverted WJE. Big goof, wasn’t it? And here we are. This sort of wikidrama is virtually always the product of pitched and protracted battles and bad blood between feuding editors. I’ve witnessed yours and Epeefleche’s edit warring and bickering on articles’ talk pages on numerous occasions. Epeefleche’s first sentence of his first response here (WJE has been hounding me for some time now), is not the imaginations of someone suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Please, tell me now that he’s wrong and you two don’t have a record of feuding. Please.

  Fact #2) Wikipedia is a hobby and the contributors here are non-expert volunteers with different levels of understanding of the facts and the law but that has never stopped contributors from parachuting into wikidramas like this where everyone instantly becomes an expert on putty and the price of it. One user told Epeefleche that close paraphrasing of a statute (law) to say what the statute says, is a copyright violation. Well, that’s all *extra special* but Epeefleche is an attorney and knows that all federal statutes are specifically exempted from US copyright laws. Nevertheless, he has to patiently *explain* these things to such editors instead of ensuring such an editor receives the simple “F*ck off” that a real grown up would receive in real life.

  Fact #3) Wikipedia has degraded into a giant factory of wikidrama and brinkmanship and gaming where posturing is accomplished via a hundred different mechanisms. Witness this post you put on my talk page, where you engaged in more wikitheater by questioning my “motivation” for coming here to say what I did. For the record: my *motivation* is to call ‘em like I see ‘em and state the truth as I see it; it’s just that simple. Period. And don’t try to hide behind the apron strings of AGF again with me because you and I know full well that there is no love lost between you and Epeefleche.

  Fact #4) The proceedings here will be decided strictly by the facts and evidence. I am more than a little bit interested to see whether this investigation shows that Epeefleche has a “history of extensive copyright violation”. Some editors will no-doubt do the Daffy Duck-stunt of jumping up and down, pointing at Bugs, and shouting “Shoot him! SHOOT HIM” because a few other sentences and sentence fragments were copied verbatim. (*Yawn*) As I wrote up above, if that’s all that comes out of this, the best remedy is for a grownup around here who actually understands copyright law and Wikipedia’s policies to explain the bright-line rule to Epeefleche and be done with it. I have no doubt that Epeefleche already has a better appreciation for Wikipedia’s expectations of what constitutes plagiarism and his work product (which is extensive) will no longer suffer from what you are deeply deeply concerned about.

  Fact #5) I will be exceedingly interested to see if the result of all this is the community allowing you to “assume without further evidence that all of [Epeefleche’s] major contributions are copyright violations [that] may be removed indiscriminately.”

  This is my last post here. I am reticent to further play games each and every time someone discovers a new way to play wikidrama that is borne out of bad blood. I am more than content to let the rest of the community figure out if there is a serious and long-running, chronic problem with plagiarism with Epeefleche that hasn’t already been fixed. Greg L (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]