Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/LupEnd007

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Contributor copyright investigation

This CCI cleanup subpage has been opened because concerns of multiple point infringement have been substantiated and further steps are necessary to address the serious risk of copyright violation from the listed contributor. 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.

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 Wikipedia:CCI#Open_investigations to include the tag "completed=yes". This will alert a clerk that the listing needs to be archived.

{{CCI-open|Contributor name|Day Month Year|completed=yes}}

Text

Examine the article or the diffs linked below.
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 google, google books and other search engines 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 text presumptively, place {{subst:CCI|name=Contributor name}} on the article's talk page.
If you specifically locate infringement and remove it (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 extricate from subsequent improvements, 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 were unable to 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.

Background

LupEnd007

LupEnd007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Check requested by Binksternet (talk)
LupEnd007 has been adding lots of too-close paraphrasing to music articles. Upon being warned about this problem at Talk:Heavydirtysoul#Persistent_prose_problems, LupEnd007 did not correct their behavior, did not go back to fix the previous problems, and instead resorted to edit warring to keep their preferred version.

An example copyvio problem:

"an aggressively fast-talking opening track which nonetheless boasts an unexpectedly melodic chorus."[1] – The Upcoming source says "the aggressively fast-talking opening track Heavydirtysoul, which nevertheless boasts a surprisingly melodic chorus."

As measured by Earwig copyvio detector, LupEnd007 has increased the percentage of copyvio at the following music articles:

The Judge (song) – 25.4 => 41.5%
House of Gold (Twenty One Pilots song) – 13.0 => 56.9%
Opinion (song) – 9.1 => 46.5%
Shy Away – 32.0 => 65.4%

Other articles that suffer from too-close paraphrasing by LupEnd007 include the following:

A completely different copyvio problem from LupEnd007 is the addition of non-free audio listening examples without "contextual significance" per WP:NFCCP. Every audio example intended for listening should be described in the article to provide context, but LupEnd007 has been uploading examples and adding them to articles without context, usually by placing them without explanatory text in the infobox.[27][28] I went through all of LupEnd007's uploads and removed the listening examples that were lacking contextual significance, so that aspect is now fixed. But according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples, each music sample must be limited to 10% of the song duration or 30 seconds, whichever is shorter. LupEnd007 has uploaded 15% of the song at File:Notion.ogg and 17% of the song at File:Corona.ogg, and many other uploads are also too long. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Investigators, there's not much in here worth your time. TL;DR these are closely phrased website violations, and the edits the can be pretty big. It'll be an annoying one. Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 17:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LupEnd007: I have to disagree with the characterization here. I did in fact go back and at least attempt to cut down on copyvio problems. I am not even sure why you chose to use that particular one as the example, considering that I had addressed and removed it from the article.

My dispute with the other user was unrelated with copyvio as far as I know, as they made no mention of it in their edit summary or on the talk page. Apparently, they took issue with my expansion of the lead section to summarize the entire article, which leads are meant to do. As it stood, the lead summarized mostly the background section. The user keeps mentioning OVERLINKING and repeatedly, if not almost exclusively, pointed to the linking of the words "rock" and "pop" as evidence. However common words they may be, "rock" and "pop" should be linked in the Composition section, for fairly obvious reasons. However, to cut down on linking, I did in fact remove the hyperlink to "pop" from the Critical reception section. As I pointed out, their edit actually reverts this and places it back. I dispute their Fancruft critique, considering that everything I had placed in the article was drawn directly from journalistic sources. As for their remaining qualms about how "This is a barely notable album tthaty is not 400 percent larger than it needs". I have no idea how they arrived at that estimate. Frankly, their complaints appears predicated on arbitrary notions.

Back to the subject as at hand. I have to admit that I was not aware of the Earwig Copyvio Detector tool. I wish it had been recommended earlier, it appears to be a very useful for the given task that I need to accomplish. I am not accustomed to having these specific kind of issues. Though I will say that upon using the tool, my first impression is that a lot of my violations seem to arise from me quoting the sources closely for the Critical reception sections. However, it should also be noted that on certain articles listed here, including Heavydirtysoul, you are blaming me for copyvio problems I am not responsible for. For example, the material that supposedly violates copyright on Rockaway Beach was already on the page prior to my edit. And I did not really change that section apart from removing the cluster of citations. Are you all aware that the tool links to web pages that mirror content from Wikipedia?

Example

Current: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockaway_Beach_(song)

Prior to my edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rockaway_Beach_(song)&diff=940115204&oldid=940046632

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rockaway_Beach_(song)&diff=next&oldid=940115204

Earwig: https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Rockaway+Beach+%28song%29&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0

Main "source" of vio: https://rockandrollgarage.com/hear-beach-boys-singer-cover-for-ramones-rockway-beach/

-- LupEnd007 (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it difficult to believe you made an attempt to cut down on copyvio, given that just at the beginning of the month were your edits to Shy Away (see Talk:Shy Away). I was incorrect in stating earlier that LupEnd007 brought the copyvio on the article from 30% to 60%. In reality, the 30% match on the source appears taken from Wikipedia, making the actual copyvio before LupEnd007, 6%. There is a 60% infringement on this BBC source. I'll give a specific example: "he created the song for his younger brother after asking him how to go about writing and producing a record." is what LupEnd007 wrote, and this is what's in the source: "he created the song for his younger brother, after he asked him how to go about writing and producing a record".

Another example from this source: LupEnd007 wrote: "[T]wenty one pilots shared a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the music video for "Shy Away." In the source, "[T]wenty one pilots have shared a behind-the-scenes look at the making of the video for Shy Away."

Not to mention an overuse of quotes, LupEnd007's changes to Shy Away introduced restating of information multiple times, which I had to cut down. When I made a few changes, such as changing the word "imparted", or unlinking the note G (musical note), they were reverted for no apparent reason in massive edits by LupEnd007, which isn't a big deal for subjective things like "imparted", but for actual tense and reference errors I fixed, it makes no sense to revert them. After I posted on the talk page, the much more experienced Binksternet rollbacked the edits as I was unsure what to do.

Overall I think this statement barely helps LupEnd007's case.Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 13:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My statement was to Binksternet but since you are here, I will point you towards my cutting down on the aforementioned Heavydirtysoul, The Judge etc. But like I said, I was operating without the use of the Earwig Copyvio Detector tool, so it perhaps one might not find them sufficient. Either way, it very is a work in progress.

As for Shy Away, I was preparing copyedits that would have dramatically reduced any copyvio problems. However, much of that text is now moot thanks to the revert and probably has to be rewritten. I do not recall reverting the G (musical note) specifically, at least not following your claim of OVERLINKING but I do remember providing an edit summary that elaborated on attributing text and linked to related to advice on WP:USM. -- LupEnd007 (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LupEnd007, you added more bad writing with copyright violations to "The Judge" even after I removed the problems a week earlier. At "Heavydirtysoul" you fought everybody who tried to remove your bad writing, restoring a bunch of unencyclopedic, word-salad prose along with too much repetition. It's like every adjective from the sources was shaken up in a bag to randomize them and thereby side-step the copyvio, but in a way that obfuscates the topic and confuses the reader.

At a bunch of song articles listed here, you did not go back and rework your copyright violations. "House of Gold" still has your violations, "Opinion" has your violations, "Tear in My Heart", etc. Sure, it's true that you were not asked to fix all of your copyvio, but the most responsible reaction to hearing our concerns about rampant copyright violations would have been to investigate and correct all of your own past work. Instead, you have dragged your feet, doing as little as possible, and you fight other editors over your preferred versions.

Never once did I mention overlinking to you. Are you confusing me with Walter Görlitz? He listed it on your talk page as one of the many problems he saw in your "Heavydirtysoul" edits. Of all the problems discussed here, overlinking the least important. Let's focus on copyright violations. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As of yet, I have been quite reasonable and willing to provide explanations in edit summaries for my edits, including reverts. My aforementioned advice towards Mcguy15 regarding attributing text within the Composition sections [for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shy_Away&diff=1021285938&oldid=1021267037]. Even got a thank you in my Notice for that one. I would have been more than happy to address any issues in those subsequent copyedits that were coming up, and been cooperative if they had reached out to me to clarify whatever they thought I was doing wrong on that article. In short, I would hardly describe what I have done so far as combative. I generally try to revert only when the user fails to given adequate explanation for a given revert, as was the case with Walter Görlitz. The other user was in fact Walter Görlitz by the way, I assumed that was who you were referring to earlier in regards to Heavydirtysoul. As I said, my dispute with them was completely unrelated to copyvio so I am not even sure why it was invoked, but I thought I would clarify.

For the record, I think much the critique you have given me has been quite hyperbolic, but I am starting to get the message. There is only so much I can to with vague, subjective description like "word-salad" and the kind exaggerated rhetoric you exuded in the some of the edit summaries. Something a bit measured like simply "unencyclopedic" is more helpful. I have yet touch House of Gold, hence why I did not cite it as one I went back one. Though I do plan on it. I was planning on addressing much of my past work whether specifically requested or not, though it will take time. Hopefully the Earwig Tool will help expedite things. Again, the issue I raised is that in certain cases you are blaming for copyvio problems I am not responsible for. I would suggesting taking a look those links relating "Rockaway Beach" from above. As an aside, do you know how to filter out certain URLs in the tool interface? Like I said, I am unfamiliar with the tool. As both I and I think perhaps Mcguy15 have mentioned earlier, much of what comes up as copyvio is a site that mirrors Wikipedia. i.e. It not entirely that I am copying sites, it is that certain sites are copying what has been submitted to Wikipedia, including by me. Regarding articles like "Opinion", as I mentioned before, the copyvio seems to arise from a quote in the Critical reception. Odd, seeing as the review quote is attributed specifically to the person, like every other quote in the section. -- LupEnd007 (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution survey

LupEnd007 (talk | contribs | deleted contribs | logs | block | block log)

Instructions

Text

Background

LupEnd007

Contribution survey

Pages 1 through 20

Pages 21 through 40

Pages 41 through 60

Pages 61 through 80

Pages 81 through 100

Pages 101 through 120

Pages 121 through 185