Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/StabiloBoss

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

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   on the article's talk page.
 * If you specifically locate infringement and remove it (or revert to a previous clean version), place   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, 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  on the article's face and   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.

Images

 * Examine the images below. For free images:
 * Does the image look non-free? Is it likely the uploader is the copyright holder?
 * Is the image properly licensed and sourced? Be aware of images that say "this image is licensed under X" without specifying who created it.
 * Do a reverse image search using Google Images. Check the license of the source page. Compare the last modified time with the (Commons) upload time.
 * Do a Google image search for phrases that describe the image's contents.
 * See Guide to image deletion on dealing with cases of possible image copyright infringement. There is no need to open a possibly unfree files listing. Administrators may delete images from multiple point infringers presumptively in accordance with Copyright violations. Evaluators who are not administrators may section images into a "deletion requested" section for administrator attention.


 * For non-free images, determine whether each image meets our non-free content criteria.
 * Note that Commons does not accept non-free content.
 * Annotate the listing with the action taken, e.g. if the image was tagged no source write "no source"; if the fair use claim is deemed ok you can write "OK fair use".

Contribution survey
 StabiloBoss
 * Check requested by NebY (talk)
 * Several articles created in 2006 took material verbatim from different articles in the journal The History of the Family, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2004. I don't have full access to the journal but can see long copied passages in the online abstracts and fear more of the articles and references are copied. Much of the copied text is still in our articles. The StabiloBoss account was blocked as a sock in 2006 and a different copyright problem reported on the talk page by Moonriddengirl in 2009. I'll add details with links here after saving this. NebY (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Several articles created in 2006 took material verbatim from different articles in the journal The History of the Family, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2004. I don't have full access to the journal but can see long copied passages in the online abstracts and fear more of the articles and references are copied. Much of the copied text is still in our articles. The StabiloBoss account was blocked as a sock in 2006 and a different copyright problem reported on the talk page by Moonriddengirl in 2009. I'll add details with links here after saving this. NebY (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Details:Journal: The History of the Family, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2004

Early Danish census taking -> Census in Denmark

English population statistics before 1800 -> English population statistics since merged to Demography of the United Kingdom, especially Demography of the United Kingdom

The birth of population statistics in Sweden -> Population statistics in Sweden, since moved to Census in Sweden

Early European population statistics and censuses -> Early European population statistics and censuses, later blanked and redirected with no obvious traces of the old text

The Norwegian census: An international and long-term perspective may be the source of the reference list or more of Census in Norway. I don't see clear copies from the abstract but I do motice that the article was created by StabiloBoss at the same time as the clear copies.

The French population censuses: Purposes and uses during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries -> Census in France

Antoine Deparcieux (1703–1768) and demographic data collection -> Antoine Deparcieux: the second paragraph of the WP article is identical to part of the abstract, inserted by StabiloBoss along with other text in three edits

NebY (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, NebY. Do you happen to have had a look if there are similar problems with the sock-master or sibling socks? Not a problem if you haven't - I'll do so in any event, as we may as well bind it all up in the one CCI. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I haven't. I was idly wondering whether to rewrite a couple of paragraphs in Demography of England that didn't seem to fit very comfortably, but something kept niggling at me.... From what I've seen now, I'm pretty sure s/he had access to the whole journal and presumably others, so it might take better access than I've got to do a thorough check. NebY (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have done a random check of five or six accounts in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bonaparte. I haven't found anything problematic. Interestingly, the sockmaster and most of the sibling socks were interested in Eastern European matters; StabiloBoss was interested in other areas. Our normal course of action would be to open a CCI for all socks; if evidence of copyvios is found in one sock, the safe thing to do is to presume all socks committed copyvios. But I'm a bit reluctant to do so here, given the massive number of socks. It's a matter of weighing up the risk of overlooking copyvios committed by some of the other socks against the burden on community time of fishing around through the contributions of dozens and dozens of accounts. Thoughts from anyone? --Mkativerata (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and created the CCI just for this account. I have access to the full text of the journal and can confirm the copying is as widespread as predicted. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This report covers contributions to 28 articles from timestamp 2006-03-07 13:30:45 UTC to timestamp 2006-04-06 16:40:23 UTC. __NOINDEX__