This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Contributor copyright investigation
This
CCI cleanup subpage has been opened because concerns of repeated
copyright violations from the listed contributor have been substantiated and further review of contributions is necessary. 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, and are encouraged to assist with accessing offline and paywalled sources.
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
Template:CCIlist to include the tag "completed=yes". This will alert a clerk that the listing needs to be archived.
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 search engines, google books, or archives, 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 large portions of text presumptively, place {{
subst:CCI|name=Contributor name}} on the article's talk page.
If you specifically locate infringement and remove large portions of the text (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 salvage, 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 did not 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.
A new article
Marine construction created by this contributor (and administrator) was
blanked yesterday. I did some surveying and found five other concerning articles. I have listed them with excerpts
here. Issues mostly relate to close paraphrasing. Best,
CandyScythe (
talk) 16:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
(sighing) Copypatrol is currently down (supposedly for a day or so) so I'll have to wait for that to come up to properly assess the article that started this.
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Alright, time to get this painful one out of the way. I thought this might be minor enough to ignore but looking through recent edits I found further issues.
Comparisons:
August editLong-term ecological monitoring is necessary to inform planning and governance of MPAs, and to ensure that implementation follows plans. SANParks Research Strategy 2020 is the current guideline as of 2023. Other input comes from national and internal policies and priorities, gazetted objectives of protected areas and management plans.
Long-term ecological monitoring is necessary to understand factors driving changes in biodiversity and the effects of pressures on the functioning of the ecosystems, and is an essential part of effective resource management.
There are several long-term internal and external ecological monitoring projects registered with the Cape Research Centre. The CRC and TMNP rangers monitor fish and shatks using baited remote underwater video surveys, DFFE conduct benthic monitoringTghe Seaweed unit at UCT continues to monitor seaweeds in the MPA, SAEON and SAIAB conduct oceanographic and ecological monitoring over the marine territory of South Africa in general, with a special focus on MPAs
The source (Page 57)Research and monitoring are critical for the implementation and good governance of MPAs. SANParks monitoring and research are guided by an overarching strategy (SANParks Research Strategy 2020), national and internal policies and priorities, gazetted objectives of protected areas and management plans. Long-term ecological monitoring is essential to inform our understanding of the factors driving changes in biodiversity and the impacts of pressures on ecosystem function. Several long-term ecological monitoring projects are registered with the Cape Research Centre, including internal and external monitoring. Scientists from the Cape Research Centre and rangers from Table Mountain National Park conduct internal monitoring of fish and sharks using baited remote underwater video surveys (BRUVs) annually during the summer months. Scientists from the DFFE and their partners conduct long-term benthic monitoring. The University of Cape Town conducts long-term ecological monitoring of South African seaweeds in the TMNP MPA. The South African Environmental Observation Network (SAEON) and the South African Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity (SAIAB) are leading large-scale, long-term oceanographic and ecological monitoring across South Africa, with a key focus on MPAs, including the TMNP MPA
Edit:MPAs can be beneficial for biodiversity conservation and fisheries management. The primary function of MPAs is biodiversity and heritage conservation, but these objectives are not always incompatible with resource use activities, even fishing, if the extractive activities are sustainable and have a low ecological impact. This requires good planning, design and governance, which follow from effective management.
Periodical assessment of MPA management in South Africa has found that limited human resources in skilled staff, non-compliance and lack of monitoring and community education are unresolved problems.
Other items specifically identified in the TMNPMPA assessments include the need for budget reviews, development and implementation of a management and operational plan specific to the MPA, upgrades to infrastructure, development of research and monitoring programmes, and better stakeholder engagement.
The source (Page 44)MPAs have become widely regarded as beneficial for biodiversity conservation and fisheries management (Ballantine 2014). While the primary focus of MPAs is biodiversity and heritage conservation, itsobjectives are not necessarily incompatible with fishing and other resource use activities, provided these activities are sustainable and have a low ecological impact. Following the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) guidelines, MPAs should demonstrate sound planning, design, andgood governance (Day et al., 2019). Thus, a vital determinant of a MPAs success is effective management. MPA management in South Africa has been periodically assessed (Lemm and Attwood, 2003; Tunley, 2009; Chadwick et al., 2014). Limited human resources (especially skilled staff such as skippers), non-compliance and lack of monitoring and education are significant ongoing challenges (Chadwick et al., 2014). Further priority actions identified in the TMNP MPA include budget reviews, development and implementation of a dedicated MPA management plan and operational plan, improved stakeholder engagement, upgraded infrastructure (including repair of degraded signage), and development of research and monitoring programmes
EditPoaching of abalone and lobster is prevalent as these are of high value and in high demand. South African abalone stocks are severely threatened as a result of long term over-exploitation and uncontrolled large-scale poaching, and ecological changes in parts of its distributional range. The illegal abalone trade was estimated to be almost double that of the legal trade in 2018.
The source (Page 46)A major challenge for management is the illegal extractions of marine resources in the TMNP MPA, particularly abalone (Haliotis midae) and West Coast rock lobster – two species of high value and demand. South African abalone stocks are severely threatened due to large-scale poaching andecological changes in parts of its distributional range (Brill and Raemaekers, 2013; Griffiths et al., 2004). The illegal abalone trade is estimated to be almost double that of the legal trade (National Biodiversity Assessment 2018). Poaching can have impacts extending beyond species conservation, such as affecting park visitors and the local tourism economy.
Even though these are not 1:1 copies, they are examples of
close paraphrasing and are unfortunately copyright violations. Given this and the reported violations, I am going to be opening a CCI. This will be a pain in the ass and I don't like it either but I don't think we have much of a choice.
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
MER-C This will need the offline survey, over 100K edits to mainspace. But I DON'T think we should right away start attacking this. It's time for us to stop throwing ourselves at these timesink investigations, and find a better way to cleanup and deal with them.
Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus: if the third comparison/example is a copyright violation then we can just give up on writing articles on any technical subject entirely. --
JBL (
talk) 20:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)reply
That's what makes it so much more difficult, honestly. There's valid
WP:CLOP concerns mixed in with LIMITED cases, but it's hard to tell if you do not edit this specific area because of the technical jargon used. I attempted cleanup multiple times on the marine construction article and ultimately went with "can I, a non-expert in this area, rephrase this in a concise manner?" to decide. I then gave up 1-2 paragraphs later because of the absolutely massive amount of time it took. The third example actually seemed the worst to me; it will always sound close due to the precise terms required, but the last sentence is directly copied from the text.
Sennecaster (
Chat) 11:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Moneytrees, show us that you know how to write content for Wikipedia, by rewriting that stuff you put in the "Comparisons" box in a way that does not violate your idea of Wikipedia's strict guidelines, to show us how Wikipedia content creation is done. Thanks,
wbm1058 (
talk) 12:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Moneytrees, feel free to ignore Wbm1058; as can be seen from the ANI discussion this is not a good faith request, but a very lame attempt to "win" the dispute by claiming that rephrasing is impossible and not accepting anything else for an answer.
Fram (
talk) 16:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm not going to fill this - and I recommend anyone else does not either - until the above is clarified.
MER-C 16:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
This report generated by
ContributionSurveyor.java at 2023-09-03T10:38:39.557236227Z. Command line: java org.wikipedia.tools.ContributionSurveyor --user Pbsouthwood --outfile dump.txt