Skip to:Instructions •Requests for investigations •Open investigations

Contributor copyright investigations (CCI) is a process for identifying users who have repeatedly committedcopyright violations over long periods of time and review their contributions for any remaining issues. A CCI begins when an editor notices a large-scale pattern of copyright violations from a user and files a case request. Administrators or copyright clerks review the request and may open a full survey of their contributions, which will be reviewed and removed if suspected or confirmed to be a copyright violation.

CCI is intended for large-scale systematic copyright violations only. Persistent unattributedcopying within Wikipedia or from compatibly licensed sources and translations fromsister projects may also be raised here. To list individual articles or files for evaluation, seeWikipedia:Copyright problems orWikipedia:Files for discussion; however, attempting resolution is not required prior to filing a CCI request.

At least five instances of clear copyvios (copy/pasting of unlicensed third party material; clearderivative works) is required to file a case. More may be required for issues like copying within Wikipedia orplagiarism from free sources. There are no other requirements for filing a CCI request, but listing diffs, sources, and warnings clearly and concisely is recommended.

New cases should be filed by placing the {{subst:CCI-request}} underneath therequests header below.

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

Please remember to remaincivil. Most contributors violate copyright policies due to misunderstandings rather than malicious intent. While it may be necessary to intervene to prevent future copyright issues, treating individuals discourteously is unhelpful.Good faith requests are welcome even if they should prove mistaken. However, this is a serious allegation and should not be made without evidence. Requests without evidence may be interpreted asharassment and will be removed by administrators or clerks.

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

Acopyright clerk or admin will review the request and determine if a full case is needed based off of the evidence presented, responses by the editor subject to a request, and their own brief survey. Clerks may request that an administrator review deleted contributions where necessary. If the evidence does not substantiate the concern, the CCI request will be declined, and thenarchived.

If a user has requested evaluation of your contributions here, please remember that the purpose of CCI is not to harass or embarrass you, but to keep Wikipedia compliant with copyright laws. If you believe that your contributions are not a copyright problem under Wikipedia's policies, please succinctly provide your rationale. If the user who made the request is proven mistaken, the request will be declined with a note. However, if a case is opened, you may best demonstrate your willingness to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policies by helping to identify and address the copyright issues you have caused.

Upon accepting a case, a clerk or admin will create the appropriate contributor survey subpage and then populate the contribution data.

If contributors have been proven 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 thus removed indiscriminately, in accordance with ourcopyright violation policy. CCI tries to avoid significant collateral damage and generally reviews each article carefully, but presumptive wholesale removal is used if the effort required to review is much higher than reasonably expected.

To participate in cases, follow the link of one of the open cases.All contributors with no outstanding history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to clean up, and users who are listed here are encouraged to help clean up their own materials. Users subject to a CCI will not receive notices of articles or images that are deleted or blanked for copyright concerns during the investigation.

The{{y}} and{{n}} templates are used to confirm whether the edit was a copyright issue. The{{?}} template is used to indicate that the edit has already been either deleted or completely rewritten, and therefore not worth the effort. Upon completion, the CCI case will bearchived.

Requests

• 11614soup (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log)
• Check requested byPsychastes (talk)
• 11614soup added a very large amount of (often properly attributed) but still-copyrighted material to numerous articles related toSøren Kierkegaard, mainly taken from Hong and Hong's 26 volume edition of that philosopher's work (published Princeton University Press, 1978-1998) but also from many other sources. Diffs:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Alternatively seeSpecial:Contributions/11614soup, nearly all of this editors large contributions (>1000B) seem to have been (attributed) copypastes from sources with generallyno regard for public domain or not, and the majority of English translations of Kierkegaard are not in the public domain (note that if if has a date in the 1840s that's not the english publication date it's the original danish one, anything not attributed to a specific translation is probably from the Hongs and should be assumed to be there by default, as they were the first to translate K's complete works into english). Warning: the sample diffs are only a very small portion, the scale of this copyright infringement is vast, consisting of several hundred edits adding copyrighted material, mostly made between 2011 and 2016.Psychastes (talk)21:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Dictionary of Australian Biography
• Check requested byMCE89 (talk)
• I’m requesting a CCI for about 1000 pages listed atWikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Dictionary of Australian Biography. This was a project active around 2005-2010 to create articles based on theDictionary of Australian Biography. The project page encouraged users to create pages based onthe Australian public domain Dictionary of Australian Biography, courtesy of Project Gutenberg Australia, and the majority of the listed pages seem to have been created by directly copy-pasting from the source text. Unfortunately, while the source text became PD in Australia in 2001, it will not be PD in the US until 2044. There was some discussion of the copyright status of the source at the time, where it was noted that the work might not be PD in the US, e.g. see[10][11][12].

A small set of examples of pages created by copying from the DAB include:

• • [13], copied from[14]
  • [15], copied from[16]
  • [17], copied from[18]
  • [19], copied from[20]
  • [21], copied from[22]
  • [23], copied from[24]
  • [25], copied from[26]
  • [27], copied from[28]
  • [29], copied from[30]
  • [31], copied from[32]

The users who created these pages seem to have been acting in good faith and were under the impression that the source text was PD (e.g. see edit summaries[33][34][35]). There were a few different users involved, and I haven’t found any copyvio in any of their other contributions so far. Given that, it was suggested offwiki that it might therefore be a better idea to open this as a CCI based on the list of pages rather than based on particular users, similar toWikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Alternatively, if regular CCIs were to be opened for particular users, I would suggest that CCIs forDiverman andJonathan O'Donnell are probably warranted, as they have smaller edit counts and a very substantial portion of their edits involved copying from the DAB. A CCI forPDH might also be warranted, but would have a lower hit rate given that they have a larger number of edits unrelated to the DAB. There are a few other users who also created a significant number of these DAB articles, but where a full CCI into all of their contributions would probably not be worthwhile.MCE89 (talk)14:25, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that theDictionary of Australian Biography is not public domain in the US due to theURAA, and will not be PD until the end of 2044.The4lines |||| (talk)06:02, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be opened, I've had to list some articles at copyright problems/outright delete a few. I think if we limit the CCI to creations from DAuB by Diverman and Jonathan O'Donnell that will give us the best use of our time/effort, but if we want we should add PDH's creations as well. I did not find copying or even CLOP from many others. @MER-C, how do you typically open these kinds of cases?Sennecaster (Chat)00:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last September, I found 5 copyvios and 1 unattributed copying by PDH. One of the copyvios was from the ODNB. See my noteshere. I think a separate full case on PDH would be needed here.MrLinkinPark333 (talk)07:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OpenedWikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/PDH. Listings for a given source require custom programming.MER-C18:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Jack1956 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log)
• Check requested byMrLinkinPark333 (talk)
• I came across this user while examing the close paraphrase tag atWilliam Perry Fogg. I can confirm that the majority of this article closely paraphrases and copiesEncyclopedia of Cleveland History. This close parahprasing occured when the user created the article inJune 2019 and is in the current revision of the article. I decided to look at this user's current edits to see if there were any vios. I found the following:

• October 2024:Auguste Charles Valadier copies/closely paraphrases thisSage journal article. PerUK copyright andCommons:Hirtle chart, the copyright was restored in the USA during 1996. This Sage article from 1974 did not become public domain then because UK copyright is 70 years PMA.
• February 2024: Upon creation,Arthur Moreland (artist) closely copies thePolitical Cartoon Gallery source.
• June 2023: The creation ofClive Gardiner closely copiesArtists in Britain Since 1945
• January 2023:Twoedits atWilliam Bradbury (printer) are copied from ODNB. Theonline version predates these edits as it's from 2021.
• Alternatively, I've found unattributed PD copying added in May 2023 atThe Prince and the Beggar Maid (play) from a1910 article.Laetitia Withall has unattributed Wikipedia copying added in January 2020 that originated fromSelina Martin in Martins' 2011 article creation. I am concerned that this long-time user has made multiple recent copyvios. I believe that a CCI is needed. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thank you!MrLinkinPark333 (talk)02:05, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I feel like I'm on trial here! It is my intention to answer each allegation/accusation point by point, when I have the time. In my defence, when writing my articles I regularly check them with Wiki's copyvio tools.Jack1956 (talk)21:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Perry Fogg - the copyvios appear to have been written by an Anon IP at the same time I was constructing the article in its early stages.Jack1956 (talk)21:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auguste Charles Valadier - I cannot see where the supposed copyvios are in the article.

Arthur Moreland (artist) - the disputed section is a list of his publications; you can't copyright a list of someone's works.

Clive Gardiner - the article as it stands bears no resemblance to the alleged source, which was used only in the early stages of writing the article as a template for a complete rewording.

William Bradbury (printer) - the article bears no similarity to the ODNB article. I've run various copyvio checks on it.

The Prince and the Beggar Maid (play) - the (out of copyright) source from 1910 is fully attributed in the referencesJack1956 (talk)22:28, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my reasoning:

• Fogg: The IP did not introduce the copyvio. This IP editor added references on June 6th. The copyvio originated when you created the article on June 5th.
• Valadier: Please compare the paragraph with page 786.
• Moreland: The entire source is copied and follows the same structure. Examples of copying/close para are "striking caricature the newspaper’s executive Ernest Parke was seen by Parke who, instead of sacking Moreland appointed him to the art department" and "contributed to the Liberal landslide of 1906 and the revival of Liberalism."
• Gardner: I request that you re-examine page 463 of Artists in Britain Since 1945. The last paragraph closely paraphrases/copies and follows the exact same order of the encyclopedia entry. It is also still in the current revision.
• Bradbury: Earwig copyright check does not work on sources that are hidden by subscriptions.
• Prince and the Beggar: Any Public domain copying needsTemplate:Source-attribution.

I think another user should examine these revisions as there is a disagreement.MrLinkinPark333 (talk)00:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking a look at these, and I'll comment one by one.

• Fogg. I don't think there was a significant close paraphrasing problem as of today, but I've modified the text to be sure.
• Valadier. I'm not sure what copyvios are being asserted. Which paragraph on p. 786, and which text in the article? If you think it is too closely paraphrased, by all means, modify it.
• Moreland. I do not think that "his striking caricature of the newspaper’s executive Ernest Parke was seen by Parke who, instead of sacking Moreland appointed him to the art department" is too closely paraphrased from the source's "A vivid caricature drawn by Moreland of Ernest Parke, then an executive on the paper, found its way to its subject and, rather than being dismissed, Moreland found himself appointed to the art staff." Again, I don't think there was significant close paraphrasing in our article, but I tweaked the text.
• Gardner. My goodness, that is nothing like close paraphrasing. I must say that one has to work extremely hard to find the few words of that profile spread out among the paragraphs of this biography. When you merely state facts that are derived from a source, it is not close paraphrasing. For example, the name of the schools that he attended have to come from one source or another.
• Bradbury. Same
• Prince. What text from this PD source do you think is unattributed?

Overall, I don't see anything concerning here. --Ssilvers (talk)19:59, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Valadier: Thisparagraph in comparison to the first two paragraphs of theSage Journal page 786.
• Gardner: An almost word for word copy is "Under the influence of Puvis de Chavannes he had shown for several years at the Royal Academy and the New English Art Club." The part in bold is the most concerning part. Examples of close paraphrasing is "Turning to illustration, he provided artwork for books written by his father as well as taking up portrait painting and designing posters".
• Bradbury: Example of close paraphrasing is "where eventually their business occupied the whole street and where they installed a newly-designed large, steam-driven cylinder printing press which they kept running twenty-four hours a day six days a week."
• Prince: The production and synopis pagrapgrahs. Please see theEarwig report.

MrLinkinPark333 (talk)20:27, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ssilvers, I get you and Jack have worked a lot together[36][37][38], but there's still issues here. Let's look at a random paragraph from the Valadier example. I've used bold text to make direct overlaps, but you'll notice quickly just how similar the overall structure of the two paragraphs is. I've underlined material that is essentially the same, but reworded slightly.

• Much of this work was doneat his own expense,while his own dental technicians in hisdental laboratory in Paris fashioned the dental appliances necessary for the treatment of fractures to the jaw.It was decided that in the operating theatre Valadierwould require the assistance of a trained surgeon, and so Harold Gillies joined his team.It is not known how long Gillies stayed with Valadier, but it was certainly long enough to inspire in Gillies adesire to learn more about this new medicaltreatment (from Wiki article)
• He had provided much of the equipment largelyat his own expense, and adental laboratoryin which his own technicians from Paris made the various dental appliances used in the treatment of jaw fractures.It was decided that in the operating theatre Valadiershould be assisted by a medical man, and in this capacity Gillies was sent to work with him. This was Gillies' introduction to a new kind of wound, and he soon realized that they needed a special type of surgical equipement.How long Gillies remained with Valadier is not known, but the experience produced in him an intense interest and thedesire to learn more about the methods oftreatment. (from SAGE article)

@Jack1956 I note above that you say you regularlyregularly check them with Wiki's copyvio tools; I think that may be the crux of the issue. Tools like Earwig's only pick up direct copy-paste issues, and it's easily fooled by swapping synonyms, swapping the order of clauses, or adding extra words. I think you may have accidentally trained yourself to do that. For example,treatment of jaw fractures is completely natural and concise English, that can't reasonably be said to be a copyright issues- but in the article, that's been turned into the slightly torturedtreatment of fractures to the jaw. That's stopping that sentence from showing up on Earwig's tool, but it hasn't stopped the sentence from being, fundamentally, the same. (You can see that if you zoom out a little: they both follow the form of "Work done at own expense, some type of conjunction, dental technicians from Paris made dental appliances to treat jaw fractures") Looking at other article, for example,Alfred Ellis (photographer)#Legal cases[39], created 2023, and there's the same issue. The overall presentation of ideas is roughly identical, even if enough words have been changed that Earwig's tool can't see it.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋20:29, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• SDoderer (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log)
• Check requested byミラP@Miraclepine
• So while I was doing a college assignment, I ran into a related series of events culminating in discovering this user's apparent trend of adding piecemeal plagiarism in their edits, which may have to be reviewed for copyvios. Here are some examples:
  • Victor Sassoon (the starting point), where I had to remove entire paragraphs for copyvio.
  • Furniture History Society, where I rewrote a sentence they added to an article they created in 2019.
  • Derreen Garden, which apparently shows piecemeal copyvioas early as 2012 (I checked the ref and it matches).
  • Speyer family, whereat one point two sentences were copied wholesale from page 2 ofhttps://www.leannelangley.com/site/assets/files/1072/bankerbaronetsaviourspy.pdf.

Note that some of these articles use a lot of offline sources (Frederick Huth & Co andE. D. Sassoon & Co.) and may be subject to presumptive removal. Also, they have a tendency to add sources in their edit summaries instead of the article itself (seethis for example), which may be more helpful for checking than Earwig. Another complication is that there may be other times whenthey use external links bullets to list sources. I don't have time to search the whole enchilada, but these should be enough.ミラP@Miraclepine02:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• JorkaSSS (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log)
• Check requested byTenshi! (Talk page)
• Translation vios from Lithuanian into English, came across this while looking intoWikipedia:Copyright problems/2025 October 15. I'm not sure if the unsourced descriptions of images and places are taken from VLE or anywhere else.
• Found in above CP listing (all revdelled):1299491422 from variousVLE pages,1304722475 from[40],1300317182 from[41],1307439440 from[42],1296831243 from[43].
• 2025:1295244506 from[44],1277939912 from[45],1277764684 from[46],1276406004 from[47]
• 2024:1249154629 from[48]
• 2023-mid 2023:1178463258 from[49],1178424251 from[50],1174502831 from[51]Tenshi! (Talk page)18:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Chongkian (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log)
• Check requested byMrLinkinPark333 (talk)
• Came across this user when Iremoved copyvio fromNuclear power in Taiwan in August 2025. This copyvio originated from this user inMarch 2014. I decided to see if there were any copyvios from this user after 2014. Here is what I found:
• June 2018: The Political stance section added inYao Jen-to copies/closely paraphrasesThe Taipei Times source.
• July 2018 revision atNgarachamayong Culture Center copiesOcean Island Travel
• January 2019 edit atDexing Coal Mine copies fromTaipei Municipal Wuxing Elementary School
• February 2020 edit atJiading Wetlands copies/closely paraphrasesTaiwan Today
• November 2022 edit atCentral Street (Taiwan) closely paraphrasesthis travel website
• Also noticed on theirtalk page that their articleUnderground Cable was speedy deleted for copyright in 2012.

While I'm concerned about the recent copyvios, I'm really concerned that this user has added copyvios after becomingautopatrolled in 2016. This is becauseWikipedia:Autopatrolled says it is "given to prolific creators of clean articles". Unfortunately, I have found 5 copyvios/close paraphrases that came after autopatrolled was given to this user. Due to these reason, I have to request this CCI. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Thank you!MrLinkinPark333 (talk)22:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HiMrLinkinPark333, I fully understand theWP:COPYVIO of Wikipedia when writing the article and I've always been trying my best not to violate that. Up to date, I have created 2,560 new articles in Wikipedia by following as much as I can all of the rules andWP:MOS of Wikipedia. As a saying says .."The best way not to make any mistake is not to do anything. Thus, the more we do things, the more likely we may (unintentionally) create mistake." So yes, for all of the articles I have created, I first read the statements from the source and I rewrite them down in Wikipedia in my own words and understanding,without doing any direct copy+paste from the original source. ThatUnderground Cable article was 13 years ago when I was still a newbie in Wikipedia and knew nothing about how to write properly in the platform, and thus it was deleted, and thus I learned by lesson to better myself in writing other articles in Wikipedia. So fast forward years later, I started to create more and more articles and always attach any inline citation source perWP:INCITE. And I always put in mind that I should not write anything outside the given sources/citation because we cannot write any original research in Wikipedia articles perWP:NOR, thus I only write (and paraphrase) information from the given list of references/citations of an article. And from most of the 5 articles that you pointed out, most of them you wroteclosely paraphrased, thus I did what I had to do to paraphrase. But, whether it is fully paraphrase or closely paraphrase, is there anyWP:MOS on that so that I know exactly what I need to change or remove? Most of the articles I created are technical articles (meaning it is full of numbers, parameters etc), in which I cannot simply remove them because those are hard facts needed for the articles. But if you think there are things need to be changed, by all means please edit that to a level where it is no longer considered direct copying or closely paraphrase as you said. I have made paraphrasing on these 5 articles below.

I have run theEarwig's Copyvio Detector tool for the 5 articles you pointed out (Copyvio search: Use search engine & Use links in page), and:

• Yao Jen-to: 27% similarity, this is because the site listed his name, almamater, birth place and latest job position. these are hard facts in which every Wikipedia articles need to have, including fulfilling every of its Wikidata's statement. The tool statesViolation unlikely
• Ngarachamayong Culture Center, 0% similarity
• Dexing Coal Mine, 0% similarity
• Jiading Wetlands, 0% similarity
• Central Street (Taiwan), 2.9% similarity, pointing to the district name of the street and the year of its redevelopment, in which these 2 information are hard facts needed for Wikipedia article. The tool statesViolation unlikely

Or maybe is there any better copyvio detector tools that you use to even detect the slightest closely paraphrasing in writing Wikipedia article?Chongkian (talk)04:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's copyvio detector does not detect close paraphrasing, offline or scanned sources, or archive.org content. CompareSpecial:Diff/847671690 toDuring a public forum in 2013, Yao, at the time an associate professor of sociology at National Tsing Hua University, said that Taiwanese independence had lost its place in the mainstream and urged the Democratic Progressive Party to facilitate democratization in China by promoting Taiwan’s experiences in furthering democracy, freedom and human rights. fromits source. This is close paraphrasing. The rest of the diffs that MrLinkinPark333 check out.WP:NOTEARWIG explains why relying solely on those results is not enough to avoid copyright issues or disprove copyright issues. The copyvio detector is a tool, it has its flaws, and it unfortunately does not disprove the copyright issues as presented here.Sennecaster (Chat)19:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TheYao Jen-to's section I have fully deleted it (just to be on a safe side), because I don't know how else to paraphrase it without losing the core hard fact meaning inside it. The other 4 articles I have fully and heavily paraphrase it. If you see my writing and paraphrasing, I always try by best to include as many as links linking to any existing Wikipedia articles (also to change the word into its synonym to match the exact title on any existing Wikipedia article), thus making it more notable and follow standard Wikipedia-style articles. So, since you said Earwig's copyvio detector does not detect close paraphrasing, then what are the other better tool to detect close paraphrasing? Or we should just simply compare it manually and decide if that is close paraphrasing or not? Because if the latter is the case (compare it manually), then it is very subjective depending on the user. Without proper MoS or tool, then there will be so many interpretation. And also, isn't that due to theWP:NOR rule, then we as editor must follow what are the facts written in the sources we cite to the article, without really giving much extra of our other ideas of writing into it? It seems like there is a 180 degrees conflict here betweenWP:NOR andWP:COPYVIO. And to the best of my understanding, I did exactly what I think I had to do, which is to read first the original sources and then I type them again by my own words without copy+paste the original text, but I shall maintain all of the facts/names/sequence etc mentioned in the original sources.Chongkian (talk)02:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chongkian - Do you happen to have any relation toLasersharp (talk ·contribs)? You both have added copyvio toNuclear power in Taiwan, you both seem to copy from the Taipei Times, and I'm noticing some other similarities between you two.Sophisticatedevening^(talk)14:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no direct relation with that editor (Lasersharp). I come across with his edits many times because he and I both like (or used) to edit many articles about Taiwan. What I know is we are bothmembers of WikiProject Taiwan for quite some time. During most of my edit for Taiwan-related articles, I also used to encounter with other editors, such as User: Geographyinitiative, WhisperToMe, HkCaGu, ASDFGH, Vycl1994. For me personally, I usually cite these notable English online news of Taipei Times, Focus Taiwan and China Post for most of the Taiwan-related article contents in English Wikipedia.Chongkian (talk)15:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• B33tleMania12 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log)
• Check requested byThe Knowledge Pirate (talk)
• This user previously edited with the account,BlaUser234. Within the past few months,The4lines warned this user about unattributed copying. I previously kept my eye on this user during the dispute about their massive stub creations that I had no problem with. I did not notice any suspicious prose until last week, when I saw prose that reminded me of aRuigeroeland copyvio onNeoserica rotundotibialis. Thankfully, I did not have to remove any content because it was compatibly licensed. However, I checked content onAcentroptera basilica and saw a minor copyvio. I then checkedAcentroptera dejeanii, where I had to make aWP:RD1 request. Today, I removed a minor copyvio onClypeaspis trilineata, an article that was created in August. It is clear that all articles on both of this user's accounts need to be checked. If this case is opened, I want to make sure that compatibly licensed content is not unnecessarily removed.The Knowledge Pirate (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)The Knowledge Pirate (talk)03:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right place to discuss this?

Above, the filing editor gavethis edit as an example of them removing impermissibleWP:CLOP. Here's a comparison of the article text to the cited source:

(The source is actually much longer, but this quotation contains all the facts in these three sentences.)

I think do not think this is a close paraphrase. This is more than changing a couple of words; this is significantly simplifying the sentence and choosing which facts to omit. There are only so many ways to write down the fact that the pronotum has a spot, and if you tried to be 'creative' by writing something likeThe pronotum has a spot that is large and black; it is also square in shape, then the first copyeditor to see that would correct it back to "large, square, black spot".

Do other editors think this should be considered problematic?WhatamIdoing (talk)16:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the difference shown by WhatamIdoing is really problematic. Physical descriptions are usually affected byWP:LIMITED, as the number of possible readable phrasings that don't closely follow the source to some extent is quite small. I believe I've several times introduced odd phrasings into my own articles to avoid the semblance ofWP:CLOP, and then had it changed by a copyeditor to a smoother phrasing that happens to be very similar to the phrasing used by the source.Cremastra (talk ·contribs)17:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Knowledge Pirate: will you please respond? You opened this CCI, but your responses to any questions by me or others are either non-existent or one sentence replies basically state that something is not allowed, without any backing for these statements, besides your own opinion. If what I added are indeed copyvio's, they should be removed, but I really feel they are not. It also worries me a bit that apparently you have been very active in copyright cleaning, while it might very well be that your stance on what constitutes an infringement is too restrictive.B33tleMania12 (talk)12:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MrLinkinPark333,The4lines is there anything you have to say about this? There is a chance that this request may be declined. I only filed this request becauseThe4lines said something onWP:DISCORD about unattributed copying. I did not make an RD1 request on the copyvio linked above, while because it wasWP:CLOP, I did not find it egregious enough for anWP:RD1 request. In fact, I only filed one for a single article. The above is a fairly minor copyvio.

Most of your articles are fine. In fact, most of your recent articles that you added attribution templates to didn't need them because there wasn't enough prose.

Upon reading this one a second time, I only see that parts of it were problematic. Minor tweaks would have been better. I might needSennecaster to look at the deleted content in the RD1 request that I made for her opinion as well.The Knowledge Pirate (talk)13:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding and no hard feelings, I just really need some clarity on what I can and cannot add to an article. I don't want to make articles with hardly any content, but I also don't want to infringe copyright. The stuff I am working on now is all CC-BY and I do intend to make articles based on copyrighted sources though, so I think the discussion at the Village pump is still important (for me, but also for other editors working on species I think)B33tleMania12 (talk)13:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I indeed did not attribute properly when I started. I hope I fixed all or most of those by now, but if you or anyone else see any still left: let me know and I will fix itB33tleMania12 (talk)13:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not studied your contributions extensively, but if this request gets accepted I expect to mark most of them off with no attribution or removal.The Knowledge Pirate (talk)13:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know specifically is this: is this ok (I think it is, because it is an obscure species with very limited sources available, I only used a few sentences and I rewrote them [a bit]): see the latest revision ofOxyserica steelei.Orginal (for comparison): Länge 5,0-5,7 mm, Elytrenlänge 3,7-4,1 mm, Breite 3,1-3,6 mm. Gestalt länglich oval, schwach gewölbt; schwarz, Beine rotbraun, Elytren gelbbraun, Kopf und Pronotum mit schwachem grünlichen oder metallischem Schimmer, Oberseite bis auf den glänzenden Labroclypeus matt und bis auf wenige Haare auf dem Kopf sowie die Seitenrandbehaarung von Elytren und Pronotum kahl.Google Translate: Shape oblong-oval, weakly convex; black, legs reddish-brown, elytra yellowish-brown, head and pronotum with a faint greenish or metallic sheen, upper surface dull except for the shiny labroclypeus and bald except for a few hairs on the head and the lateral hairs of the elytra and pronotum.Wikipedia entry: Adults reach a length of about 5-5.7 mm. They have a black, elongate-oval body. The legs are reddish-brown, the elytra are yellowish-brown and the head and pronotum have a faint greenish or metallic shine. The dorsal surface is mostly dull and glabrous, except for some setae on the head and the lateral cilia of the elytra and pronotum.

And just to be clear: this is only allowed for relatively obscure species with limited or no other sources available.B33tleMania12 (talk)13:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only think the first two sentences are good, but I wouldn't make anWP:RD1 request.

I would have written "Adults reach a length of about 5-5.7 mm. They have a black, elongate-oval body, with reddish-brown legs and yellowish-brown elytra. The dorsal surface is mostly dull and glabrous except for some setae on the head, elytra, and pronotum."The Knowledge Pirate (talk)14:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, I think I can agree to that level of rewriting. I'll try to do it like that. Thanks for the input!B33tleMania12 (talk)14:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added your variant to the article (without attribution, sorry) :PB33tleMania12 (talk)14:15, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that kind of rewriting is necessary. The original is basically a horizontally formatted list; it contains no verbs and no complete sentences. The difference between these two versions discussed here is mostly that the second omits some facts:

• They have a black, elongate-oval body. The legs are reddish-brown, the elytra are yellowish-brownand the head and pronotum have a faint greenish or metallic shine. The dorsal surface is mostly dull and glabrous, except for some setae on the headand the lateral cilia of the elytra and pronotum.
• They have a black, elongate-oval body, with reddish-brown legs and yellowish-brown elytra. The dorsal surface is mostly dull and glabrous except for some setae on the head, elytra, and pronotum.

WhatamIdoing (talk)20:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see if anyone else has anything to say. At least I am confident I can use a copyrighted source to add a species description in some form.B33tleMania12 (talk)07:39, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards declining this case, I don't see any systemic issue here. @The Knowledge Pirate, you are veering close to HOUNDing over this. You have repeatedly warned this user for copyright violations, but failed to clearly explain yourself with your very short answers, and multiple other editors are not finding systemic issues with their paraphrasing. I have also been pinged to three different places over this, two by you, and on Discord once over B33tlemania. You've pinged The4lines and MrLinkinPark33 as well, and Moneytrees multiple times. Stop pinging us like that and please drop the stick.Sennecaster (Chat)17:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Senne here— I think the issues aren’t substantial enough to warrant a large scale investigation.Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)17:28, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'm glad to be wrong.The Knowledge Pirate (talk)22:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steady on there. Sennecaster was respectfully identifying a possible problem over your recent conduct, something that happens among Wikipedians all the time. Stomping around and making demands about other editors' tone doesn't really help anyone, least of all yourself.Cremastra (talk ·contribs)22:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that I did not interpret it that way. I have redacted my comment.The Knowledge Pirate (talk)22:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. What reads to one person as a neutral comment can come across very harshly to another person – no harm done; it's one of the essential problems of internet communication.Cremastra (talk ·contribs)23:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Owais Al Qarni (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log)
• Check requested byMCE89 (talk)
• Owais Al Qarni's contributions were brought to my attention by @NicheSports; see the discussion atUser talk:MCE89#Potential copyright help needed. NicheSports had identified that Owais Al Qarni was potentially using LLMs to create pages, and asked for my advice after also noticing some copyright issues in Owais Al Qarni's userspace. After looking at their contributions, I also found transvio issues in several of their recent mainspace page creations.

Userspace copyvio

• Owais Al Qarni hasa number of userspace sandboxes, some of which are hosting copies of copyrighted material or machine translations of potentially copyrighted sources. They’ve explained that they are keeping thesefor study purposes
  • User:Owais Al Qarni/AlmaZ contains a machine translation ofthis book
  • User:Owais Al Qarni/40 is a long copy paste ofthis website
  • User:Owais Al Qarni/35 andUser:Owais Al Qarni/42 are obvious LLM translations, complete with communication likeIf you want, I can **continue translating the remaining sections**, including his full literary achievements, awards, and the broader impact of his work on Urdu literature, and then **compile everything into a complete English biography**. Do you want me to do that?, but I haven't been able to locate the original sources that were translated
• I haven't looked closely at the remaining sandboxes yet

Transvio in mainspace

• After looking through the pages they’ve created in the last month or so, I’ve found that several contained fairly close translation of copyrighted non-English sources:
  • Safarnama Rum-o-Misr-o-Sham contains some sentences that appear to be translated from[52]
  • Al-Aqaid al-Nasafiyya contains close translation of[53] (CC-BY but unattributed) and[54]
  • Al-Itqan has passages translated from[55]
  • Abu Taher Nadwi is a fairly direct translation of[56] in its early sections
  • Lumat al-Itiqad contains some sentences translated from[57]

Past copyright warnings

These warnings are all from 2022/2023, but they suggest that there are likely to be issues in earlier contributions as well.

• [58] July 2020 G12 tagging converted into an RD1 onAbrarul Haq Haqqi
• [59] April 2022 copyvio warning from Moneytrees
• [60] May 2022 copyvio warning
• [61] May 2022 copyvio warning from Diannaa
• [62] May 2022 query from DanCherek regarding CC-BY-3.0 licensing claim
• [63] September 2022 CWW warning from DanCherek
• [64] October 2022 G12 ofMuhammad Iqbal’s conception of Time
• [65] October 2022 copyvio warning from Diannaa
• [66] February 2023 another query from DanCherek about where the evidence is that sources are actually compatibly licensed, as well as unattributed CC copying
• [67] February 2023 warning from Sphilbrick for unattributed CC copying
• [68] February 2023 close paraphrasing warning
• [69] March 2023 copyvio warning
• [70] May 2023 cut and paste move warning
• There are also several other declined G12 taggings due to copying from compatibly licensed sources without attributionMCE89 (talk)16:22, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They've blanked a bunch of their sandboxes for G7. One of them,User:Owais Al Qarni/Perfecting Women, definitely contained close paraphrasing of[71], from 2022.User:Owais Al Qarni/10 was also deleted, and I'm pretty sure that has contained a copyright violation at some point in its history.Sennecaster (Chat)21:42, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,@MCE89: I added translations in my user space for study purposes. After studying them, I delete them myself. Earlier, I understood that this was not a problem, but now I feel it might be an issue. That is why I requested the deletion of these user space pages. The second point is about the copyright warnings. Among them, the first copyright warning is genuine, as I am a newcomer to Wikipedia. After this, I have never created a page by directly copying English text. The remaining warnings are misunderstandings about compatible CC BY licences or attribution requirements. I want to present some examples:

1. The pageMuhammad Iqbal’s conception of Time was deleted for copyright violations, but I copied the content froma source that still shows a CC BY 4.0 licence, which is compatible with Wikipedia.
2. A,B These two warnings on the same page were due to my misunderstanding of the source.The source mentioned CC BY 3.0, so I thought it was compatible with Wikipedia, but I later learned this was incorrect.
3. This warning was misunderstanding by the reviewing user, as the page isstill live and properly licensed. Another example isA, which is alsolive and compatiblylicensed.This was also user misunderstanding, as the content is still live and licensed underCC BY 4.0.
4. A,B These warnings concern how to give proper attribution.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ21:12, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another point is the use of LLMs. It is true that I used them after their launch period because they were helpful, and at that time there were no clear policies about their use. However, I did not use them to generate a completely new article. I first collected information, then reorganized it myself, and only after that did I use the LLM. When someone pointed out the limitations of LLMs, such as language issues and close paraphrasing, I stopped using them to generate new articles. I do not understand the transvio issue here. For example, for the articleSafarnama Rum-o-Misr-o-Sham, I read 13 sources and summarized the information in my own words. It is not based on a single perspective or publication. Another example is the article onAbu Taher Nadwi. I used 17 sources for that. Only one source is available for his main biographical information, which I used in the Early life section. Again, the content is my own summarization in my own words.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ23:34, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Owais Al Qarni, can you please point me to the diff you are referencing here:When someone pointed out the limitations of LLMs, such as language issues and close paraphrasing, I stopped using them to generate new articles. When did you stop using LLMs to generate article content (not just creating new articles from scratch, but any content for articles)?NicheSports (talk)00:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MCE89: Could you point to what pages are being copied/paraphrased from forSafarnama Rum-o-Misr-o-Sham andLumat al-Itiqad?Tenshi! (Talk page)21:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenshi Hinanawi Sure — onLumat al-Itiqad I found:

• Partial machine translation of p.81 of[72]:This book was not intended to be a detailed exposition of creed or a refutation of deviating sects. Instead its author intended its language to be accessible and for it to be a guiding light illuminating the path for those seeking knowledge.
• Article:The book was not written as a detailed theological debate or a polemic against opposing sects. Instead, Ibn Qudama intended it to be a concise and accessible guide—a 'gleam' (lumat)—to clarify the correct creed and direct readers toward sound belief.

OnSafarnama Rum-o-Misr-o-Sham there are a few places that seem quite similar to pp.98-100 of Haq, e.g.:

• Partial machine translation of p.99 of[73]:He briefly described the ancient and modern historical conditions of Constantinople, including the way of life, civilization, climate, development, judiciary, mosques and madrasas, war, law, industry and crafts, construction, navigation, agriculture, the teachings of colleges and schools, boarding houses, the morals of professors and students, the conditions of academic ability, writing and compilations, libraries and other academic activities.
• Article:Shibli begins with a short description of the ancient and modern history of Constantinople. He writes about Turkish life, culture, climate, prosperity, justice, mosques and madrasas, government, law, industry and crafts, architecture, navigation, and agriculture. He also describes the structure of colleges and schools, boarding arrangements, the character of professors and students, and their academic abilities. He provides an overview of Turkish knowledge and literature, including newspapers, magazines, libraries, printing presses, and other scholarly activities.

MCE89 (talk)22:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem that I can access[74] for some reason, the page doesn't load. Looking through their contribs,Syed Rezaul Karim from[75] is pretty close, though limited,Abul Hasan Ali Hasani Nadwi from[76],Saviours of Islamic Spirit from[77] (mostly a copypaste). Not sure if a CCI here for all their contributions would be helpful if copyvio was removed already and most of the issues presented here in this request are recent issues.Tenshi! (Talk page)01:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Their sandboxes need to go, the histories of quite a few contain numerous copyright violations. I'd prefer to send what's still undeleted to copyright problems but I'm sure that more will be deleted as U1.Pennecaster (Chat with Senne)02:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesthis link work? I've also kept looking through their created pages and am finding more issues:

• Bayyināt is mostly a copy paste from[78]
• Hakim al-Shahid - sections on “Birth and name” and “Education”, and to a lesser extent “Career”, are translations of pp.28-32 of[79]
• Kitab al-Zuhd wa al-Raqaiq - contains translation of[80], e.g. see paragraph starting “The transmission chains are recorded…”
• Dalail al-Nubuwwa (al-Bayhaqi) - The “Chapters” section and part of “Overview” are a translation of[81]
• Umdat al-Qari contains content translated from[82], clearest in the second half of the “Content and methodology” section
• Fath al-Mulhim contains some close paraphrasing of[83]
• Fayd al-Bari - Background section is fairly closely paraphrased from[84]
• Lami al-Darari - Content section seems pretty close to pp.191-192 of[85]
• Fada'il series is partially translated from chapter 7 of[86]
• Payam-e-Insaniyat - History section is fairly closely paraphrased from[87]
• Al-Arf al-Shadhi - Background section is closely paraphrased from chapter 5 of[88]

MCE89 (talk)03:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MosheA (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log)
• Check requested bySignifica liberdade(she/her) (talk)
• Copyright violations are present based on Google Translate of Indonesian sources. At present, I have found copyright issues in five articles:Ayamaru people ([89]),Lamalera people ([90]),Komodo people ([91]), andWambon people ([92]). Furthermore, MosheA appears to be translating content from other Wikis without attribition, such as atAiroran people ([93]). After checking a few articles, all seem to be sourced solely based on Indonesian sources, some of which are books or journal articles, making it difficult to search for key terms and thus, find copyright issues. According to the editor's user page, they do not speak Indonesian. Based on the unattributed cross-wiki copying, it's possible this is cross-wiki CV, which would make sense, given that many of the links are also dead, which is unusual for a new article that doesn't immediately appear to be LLM-generated.Significa liberdade(she/her) (talk)03:57, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My sincerest apologies, I did not realize that I had to accredit the original language Wiki. Yes, I am translating these from the Indonesian Wikipedia (and from the Minangkabau Wikipedia, for one article)—I noticed that a lot of Indonesian ethnic groups (especially peoples from Papua) had pages on the Indonesian Wikipedia and not the English one, so I decided to translate those articles.

  I do indeed speak Indonesian, I lived there for several years (I haven’t updated my user languages in nearly 20 years).

  Please tell me how to do this properly, thank you. If not or if this would be too messy, feel free to delete the articles I created.ꦩꦤꦸꦏ꧀ꦮꦺꦴꦁ‎04:50, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I added retroactive retribution to all pages using dummy edits with the following summary:Content was translated from the existing Indonesian Wikipedia article at [[id:(article name)]]; see source page's history for attribution. on the respective English Wikipedia pages (I did not make any dummy edits on the original Indonesian Wikipedia pages, nor on that one Minangkabau page).

  Please let me know if this is sufficient, or if there is anything else I need to do. The complete list of articles I created via translation ishere...it is 28 different ethnic groups, starting withArfak people at Number 1 (the newest) and ending withKomodo people at Number 28 (the oldest). I have included this edit summary on all of them, and willcease creating new ethnic group articles until this is resolved. Please let me know if this is sufficient, or if there is anything else that I need to do.If not, or if this would be too messy, we can delete all the articles. Thank you so much.ꦩꦤꦸꦏ꧀ꦮꦺꦴꦁ‎05:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Open investigations

Declined requests and Closed investigations

Templates and tools