Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2014 September 3

< Wikipedia:Copyright problems

3 September 2014

edit
Suspected copyright violations (bot reports)

SCV for 2014-09-03 Edit

edit
User_talk:Sargdub#Attribution_requested--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:Sargdub#Attribution_requested--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lists can be challenging, but I agree with your assessment.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Left a note at User_talk:Melopeeks#Draft:Daikin_Europe--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I delete drafts all the time for spam and/or copyvio reasons. This is no exception. MER-C 13:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright investigations (manual article tagging)
edit
1. By their own admission the purported blog post dated April 2011 from indiaagainstcorruption.net was actually added to that site on the day the copyright violation tag was placed on the article here (3 September 2014) .
2. The blog post claimed as the source of the copyvio was labeled not as an email but as an extract from a 2014 book which they claim quoted the email and is available only to IAC members [5].
3. The problematic passage in the Wikipedia article was added incrementally with two edits on 23 November 2013—1 and 2.
4. The blog post purporting to be an email re-quoted in a 2014 book shows an equal if not even greater similarity to the material in the following book published in 2013 prior to the addition of the passage in the Wikipedia article:
  • Nanda, Meera (2011). The God Market: How Globalization is Making India More Hindu. NYU Press. pp. xxii–xxiii. ISBN 9781583673096.
5. The paraphrasing in the Wikipedia article was from the book above which was properly cited as the source. There is no convincing evidence that it was paraphrased from anywhere else. Thus, any alleged copyright infringement is a matter between the group purporting to be the current IAC, Veeresh Malik (the alleged author of the 2014 book) and Meera Nanda (the confirmed author of the 2013 book).
6. While there was some overly close paraphrasing of one or two sentences from Nanda's 2013 book in the Wikipedia article, it does not rise to the level of a copyright violation.
7. Accusations that the editor who added the material to Wikipedia had somehow had access to a 2011 non-public email and used that instead of the published 2013 book are irrelevant to this copyright issue, unprovable, and in my view spurious.
– Voceditenore (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reply: from User:Name_Defend_IPA
As we cannot edit at Talk:India_Against_Corruption due to page permissions there, we are replying here
1. There is no such admission from my principals.
2. The blog page link URL itself shows it is an email of 6.April.2011 about the iac jantar mantar events "ramdevji-06-april-2011-jantar-mantar-iac-email-p9a156ky12txt ". The blog post itself does not say anywhere that it is from a 2014 book. At 3 places it dates the extracted text as being from 2011, of which 2 specifically mention the 6 April 2011 date.
3. It is for the infringing User (not you) to make such claims / statements. Let him make it. My principal informs me that the infringing User also later admitted elsewhere on Wikipedia that his edits that day were "not my best day" or suchlike.
4. This issue has already been completely resolved with Dr. Meera Nanda, their communications are retained by my principal. Dr. Meera Nanda has clearly written that the specific extracts used in the IAC article are about Anna Hazare and Annaji's movement and not about India Against Corruption movement, and are being misused. Prof. Ramachandra Guha has also expressed much the same thing to my principal. You may note that the complainant specifically requested that Meera Nanda be joined to the earlier discussions for it to proceed. The convincing evidence is that the infringed text is published on a domain registered to the National Convenor of the IAC.
5. Who is the "current IAC", it is not apparent from your article ? Was there any other IAC, and if so what role did Mr. Anna Hazare have in it ?
6. The mechanically computed similarities between all 3 texts are evident, as is the degree of overlap.
7. We are not concerned about your personal view(s). Who are you ? Why can't the alleged infringer speak for himself ? All I have to prove is the existence of the 6.April.2011 email to IAC's membership. That Mr. Malik was at the site between 05-07 April 2011 and meeting all these persons (all well known to him) and reporting about them is trivial to prove.
Now let the infringer kindly reply directly to our 3 queries which are as follows:-
(a) if he denies the existence of the below described email of 06.April.2011,
(b) if he denies that the extract published on the "blog" is a true reproduction of the extract from the said email,
(c) if the user has any permission to reproduce the content of the referred email.

Name Defend IPA (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • I've never idea if this is a newbie mistake or yet another instance of the long-running disruption by supporters of the India Against Corruption pressure group who have been hauled before WP:ANI and other venues on numerous occasions. In any event, there is absolutely no copyright violation in the tagged section and I'd be surprised if there is any in the article at all (mainly, I must admit, because it was mostly rewritten by me ages ago). - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have "mostly written this article" with "absolutely no copyright violation in the tagged section", you must either be Veeresh Malik or Meera Nanda. I came across this blatant copyright violation / plagiarism while researching a paper on Anna Hazare. You can use this free tool [6] or other superior tools. These are the results :
47 matching words were found:
Item 1 : 116 words total, 41% matched "On 29 October 2010 Sri Sri Ravishankar suggested we approach Ramdevji, the populist yogi having millions of followers among the middle classes of small-town India, to be the figurehead for our campaign. But by late Feb 2011 P soon realised Ramdevji's connections to the RSS threatened to damage IAC's credibility as IAC was still an apolitical movement. P demanded we replace him with Anna Hazare, who also brought his large support base along with him, mostly comprising middle-class people from both rural and urban areas and IAC now attracted idealistic internet savvy youths and high-profile support for the campaign from Bollywood stars, and mainstream English-language news media through Madhu's PR contacts."
Item 2 : 133 words total, 35% matched "They approached Ramdev, a populist yogi with millions of supporters among the middle-classes of small-town India, to be the figurehead for this campaign. His connections to the right-wing Sangh Parivar threatened to damage the credibility of what was nominally an apolitical movement. He was soon replaced by Anna Hazare, a veteran social reformer with a history of undertaking fasts in support of his causes. Hazare, too, brought a large support base with him, comprising mostly middle-class people from urban areas and idealistic youths. The urban sophistication of Hazare, compared to Ramdev's rusticity, attracted high-profile support for the campaign from Bollywood stars, the internet-savvy, and mainstream English-language news media. He, too, struggled to disassociate himself from Hindutva symbolism: hence, support from non-Hindus was less forthcoming."
Identical phrases "among the middle classes of small-town India, to be the figurehead for", "connections to the", "threatened to damage", "an apolitical movement.", "large support base", "middle-class people from", "urban areas and", "high-profile support for the campaign from Bollywood stars,", "and mainstream English-language news media". Lindashiers (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that when the tool ran. I've no idea when it was added but it was not added by me. You could have just fixed the bloody thing instead of creating all this drama. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will fix the bloody section. Lindashiers (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you fix it, as its very clear that POV hacks, lacking WP:CIR, don't allow experts to edit Wikipedia. Lindashiers (talk) 08:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, despite your feeble protestations to the contrary, this plagiarism was inserted by you [7]. Lindashiers (talk) 08:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lindashiers (talk · contribs) has now been blocked. They were part of an extensive, tendentious sock or meatfarm that has been taken to WP:ANI regarding this particular article on numerous occasions and by numerous people. I'm seriously thinking that this report itself might be manufactured, as per my comments at Talk:India_Against_Corruption#The_alleged_copyvio. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors - Writ Keeper, NeilN, DeCausa and myself - have examined this and discussed it at Talk:India Against Corruption#The alleged copyvio. At least two of us are now convinced it's a hoax.
The blog post that's said to be the source is presented as a quotation from Veeresh Malik. It concerns events from October 2010 to late February 2011 and beyond: "by late Feb 2011 P soon realised... demanded we replace him ... who also brought his large support base along with him ... and IAC now attracted ..." It seems to be written with the perspective of more than a few days or weeks, yet it's not only marked as copyright 2011 but also as posted on the blog on 06 April 2011, very soon after late February 2011.
It's shown as having been taken from page 93 of something - perhaps a book or a journal - but no title or publisher is given. Several books by Veeresh Malik appear on Amazon with "Look Inside" enabled; none have 2011 publication dates but they do allow us to see his writing style. Malik did write many articles in 2011 that appear on moneylife.in, many mentioning Hazare - here is one that is dated 06 April 2011. None have the text in the blog post. The books and articles are written in a vivid, immediate and personally engaged style that is quite unlike that of the blog material.
The blog appears on a domain that was registered in July 2014. It's the only entry; it's titled "IAC Chronicles Day 2" but there is no Day 1. The Wayback Machine has one entry for that domain,[8] identical to its current state. The Wayback copy was made on the same day - 3 September 2014 - that the complainant Lindashiers (talk · contribs) made their first edit.
The text's perspective is consistent with having been written at a distance of a couple of years. The succinct summary style is consistent with writing an Wikipedia entry. I believe the burden is on anyone accusing Sitush of copying to show that that this blog is a genuine extract from a work written by Veeresh Malik between late Febrary 2011 and 6 April 2011, and not copied with minor changes from Wikipedia. NebY (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fight for this page is sent to all India Against Corruption member to explain you nicely. The copy text is copy from the email date 6/April/2011 08:27 AM of Veersh bhai's intervue of Arvind Kejriwal on 5/April/2011 from jantar mantar Dehli. The email was originally also publish in members section of IAC website http://indiaagainstcorruption.org (WHOIS register to PCRF on 17/Oct/2010) on 6.April.2011. Most of Veershbhai email is published again in page 93 of Veershbhai's 2014 book "IAC Chronicles : An Ear to the ground".
"blog" link in copyright notice is for issueing the DMCA / OCCILLA notice to other OSP, it dos not have to be original link where it was first published, but only to contain enough of such content to identify the work being copied from. IAC related editor has already disclosed [9].
IAC person telling everything to these editor but they are keep deleting our helps. So if you not take action politely will send OCILLA / India CRA86 notice for takedown to OSP and also Mark Monitor. Since Veershbhai's idea/concept/intellecual property/artistic and creatiove rigts and all other IP is involved undr INDIA COPYRIGHT LAW also please note that just paraphrase the text will not resolve the issue. Dkgpatel (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
also you must note that since WIKIPEDEA has given wrong COPYRIGHT status as "Creative Commons" to Veershbhai's text, now WIKPEDIA / all involved editors must also ensure for immediate remove the copy content from "mirror sites" of Wikipedia, Facebook and many blogs which have copied / modify it under wrong perception of free from copyright status. Dkgpatel (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a special case, India Against Corruption, being owners / beneficiary of the domain name/website "INDIAAGAINSTCORRUPTION.NET" since 2010, would consider to release the extract from page 93 para 2 of its founding member's chronicles of the movement under a GFDL or similar licence, subject to the abovementioned link being always acknowledged as the source. This tentative proposal is made without prejudice and the timebound offer is valid for 72 hours. Dkgpatel (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My principal, who is interested in this matter, politely requests to know from the Wikipedia "community" and especially from the concerned Wikipedia user who uploaded the infringing content, if (a) he denies the existence of the below described email of 06.April.2011, (b) denies that the extract published on the "blog" is a true reproduction of the extract from the said email, (c) if the user has any permission to reproduce the content of the referred email. Name Defend IPA (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2014_September_3&oldid=647981671"