Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2024 September 18

18 September 2024

Potential copyvio issues at Royal National Institute of Blind People

I'm not sure what to do here. Another editor has repeatedly added text closely paraphrased from the organisation's about us page to the article's lede. They have added potentially copyrighted material in this edit and this edit that closely paraphrase the organisation's about us page.

I have raised the issue on the article's talk page and I have asked them on their talk page to please be mindful of WP's copyright policies. They responded with this edit which closely paraphrases the same text but this time sourced to the RNIB's partner organisations, the NHS and Newcastle city council.

I believe that I may have reverted them twice, it's becoming tedious and I don't want to fall foul of the three revert rule.

Therefore, firstly does WP's copyvio policy take precident over the three revert rule?

And secondly, can we have a second set of eyes on the article to check it for copyrighted material because I don't feel I am being heard by this editor and I don't feel that my concerns about the article's copyright issues have been adequately addressed.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 10:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GDX420: Yes, reverting copyright violations is an exception to the 3RR. See WP:3RRNO no. 5. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 19:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. – dudhhr^talk_contribs^she_her 19:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I cleaned the lead in the end. 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 09:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgiana Morson

Georgiana Morson (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://spartacus-educational.com/DICmorsonG.htm. Not clear to me that Georgiana Morson is notable, so just delete. Urania Cottage where she worked is notable, I believe, and it would be better to have an article on that topic in which she is mentioned. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No vio found, claim cannot be validated. Tag removed from article. Nothing is coming up as copyvio besides a quote which is fine in context to the article. We don't assess notability usually. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster: Of course I don't know what criteria you apply for close paraphrase. But for me, there is a problem:

In 1838 she married James Morson, a young doctor at St. George's Hospital. Soon after their marriage he obtained the post as Chief Medical Officer for the Brazilian National Mining Association. James Morson died in 1848 leaving his wife with three young children. (From [1].)

and

She married James Morson, a doctor for St George's Hospital, in 1838. Shortly after their marriage, James Morson was appointed as Chief Medical Officer for the Brazilian National Mining Association. He died in 1848, leaving Georgiana with three children to provide for by her own efforts.

I would say this is classic reordering slightly, with no real effort to put the sense in your own words. Based on Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing I would say this is a potential copyvio, and if I'd written the original I'd be annoyed. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Matthews; you're right, to some extent. I did miss it, but it's going to be annoying to reword due to how basic some of it is. I'll think on how to reword it, but I might not get around to it before you or someone else does (probably 11-12 hours from now at earliest). This doesn't require further copyright problems action after rewriting as RD1 won't apply and this isn't a systemic article issue at least. Sennecaster (Chat) 14:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster: User:Kristinamcclend who started this article is a problem editor, which is why I'm here. The large edit to Emily Faithfull paraphrases the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography adequately, but on Maud Pember Reeves "Tall and striking, with a handsome face, full red lips, dark eyes, and brown hair, Maud met her husband, William Pember Reeves (1857–1932), a journalist and politician eight years her senior, at a coming-out ball when she was nineteen" from the ODNB became "Described as tall and striking, with a handsome face, full red lips, dark eyes, and brown hair, Maud met her husband, Maud met William Pember Reeves at a coming-out ball when she was nineteen." Diff. On Margaret Nevinson (diff) there is also a very large copy-and-paste from the ODNB. I found the Nevinson article first, and rewrote it completely. I also rewrote the Maud Pember Reeves article.

This is an editor who has the wrong ideas about editing. They started Georgiana Morson from scratch, but I had good reason to look for copyvio, and it was there. Clearly enough, the starting point was the Spartacus article text, which was somewhat paraphrased and padded out.

This is not one of the best Spartacus articles - some of what John Simkin writes is respectable history with decent references, but in this case I failed in fact-checking what was there about Morson. On the face of it, the starting material is not RS. Which is why I think deletion for copyvio is a valid approach. Our current standards for content strongly suggest a fresh start, and the process of developing the article isn't acceptable. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a hefty dose of WP:TNT for other reasons, but we don't normally lump other content issues in with copyvio unless they're at CCI and it involves things like completely unsourced articles or source falsification/obfuscation. I have no problems stubbifying an article for other content issues like NPOV or verifiability, but I try to separate out those from copyright-based removals where I can due to getting challenged a lot, if that makes sense. I'll have more time to check in about 11-12 hours from now, but if you think that this editor rises to the level for presumptive deletion to occur, then it's your call. They have a very low number of edits, but out of the 4 articles they've edited, 1 has had major issues and 2 others with inadequate paraphrases, so it can go either way and neither option is wrong. Btw, thank you for catching the slip-up; no one's perfect after all :) Sennecaster (Chat) 15:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, WP:PDEL and I start Draft:Urania Cottage as a salvage job. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Matthews; I finally have the time and I've rewritten out the CLOP, but I'll let you handle the PDEL as it's a full on deletion. Alternatively, I can BLAR to Urania Cottage when it gets to mainspace. I glossed over the bit initially due to exhaustion (don't do copyright tired!) and the idea of WP:LIMITED; there's only so many ways to say someone was born and got married and that way was uncreative. The bit about children was creative, so I just rewrote that and removed the sentence about her husband being part of a redlinked organization. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]