Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Piotrus/South Korean scandals (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. There is consensus in this discussion to delete the page concerned, and revdel the parts of Political scandals in South Korea and Talk:Political scandals in South Korea which contain material merged form it. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Piotrus/South Korean scandals


Nominated for deletion three times for different reasons, the former article was created by the chronic copyright infringer Sdjones and the last version by them includes several copyvios:
 * "an American political scandal..." from
 * "a civilian computer expert..." from
 * "The Daewoo group collapsed..." from
 * "alleged to have paid bribes..." from

I could ask for a revision deletion, but there seem to be many other copyvios, close paraphrasing, and unattributed intra-wiki copying so I don't know what exactly to remove (it's more than 12 years old so it's hard to figure them all out), and if I removed all Sdjones' contributions there won't be much left, so I figured I'd just nominate it for deletion. Nardog (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Question - Please provide links to the deletion nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See the talk page. Nardog (talk) 17:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you link it. The onus for a minimum deletion rationale is on the nominator.  The talk page of this page is a redlink.  The talk page of the nominated page does have a header that contains links to three previous discussions.  You should summarize them.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same as last time.  Unpersuasive deletion rationale.  The "chronic copyright infringer" personal aspersion is very bad form.  I looked for the alleged copyright violations, and decidedly disagree.  These are fair-use quotes in userpage notes, more than acceptable.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The last version by Sdjones doesn't even have one citation. How can other people's words be "fair-use quotes" when they lack attribution, have been modified, and are not even in quotation marks? Regarding what you call "aspersion", just look at their contributions (before they get deleted—because they will). I had to redact their copyright violations and request revision deletion in no fewer than eight articles. Nardog (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Last edit ten years ago? It's an aspersion if you don't link evidence.  This sounds more like a problem for listing at Copyright problems.  I don't see a very good reason to delete work on Korean scandals.  If the copyright violation is merely missing quotation marks and attribution, noting that you need to find the source to prove the violation, and also noting the short lengths of text in question, I think the problems should be fixed, not deleted.  Unless there is something wrong with the topic.  You are saying things that look worthy of investigating, but you are providing no evidence.  I don't consider that sufficient on your part when seeking to delete someone else's userspace stuff.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See (the first one isn't by Sdjones but most likely their IP). I requested that this user be investigated at WP:Contributor copyright investigations two months ago but no one bothered so I did it on my own. Nardog (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I don't think that the copyvio issues are serious, we now have the Political scandals in South Korea article. I've merged a bit there, moved the rest to talk, and therefore there's no need for this page to languish in my userspace. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Following the merge, did you make sure attribution requirements have been taken care of? The old page has many more authors than the new article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're down with deleting the page, that qualifies under WP:CSD. But you shouldn't have merged it because that requires attribution which makes it impossible to delete the article, which nonetheless contains copyright problems to say the least. Nardog (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to new article, then delete I think that Piotrus's solution-- merge these items into a better article and then delete the former article-- is on the right track. I disagree that the merger is complete, since there are quite a few scandals from the former page (including the kidnapping of a Park's political opponent, Kim Dae Jung) that would qualify as political scandals.  The topic is valid; the new article is a better way of addressing it.  The nominator has shown links that citations can be made to, in a manner that was arguably, insulting-- but I agree with nom's point that any phrases that paraphrasing is usually better than word-for-word repeats.  In any event, I think that both the author and the nom have started the process that we call WP:SOFIXIT, and I applaud them. If Piotrus and Sdjones have no objection, and the closing admin agrees, I'll volunteer to complete the fix that they have started, and then notify admin when complete.  Thank you, User:Nardog, for alerting me to this discussion.  Mandsford 14:19, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sdjones hasn't made a single contribution for 10 years. I don't think the merger was the right call—we don't know the full extent to which the former article consists of plagiarism, and if we copied any portion of it onto another article we would then have to attribute it, which makes it impossible to delete the article, which—however—contains unattributed plagiarism and close paraphrasing. Also, you can't ever "merge to new article, then delete" anything on Wikipedia (unless all contributors agreed to do it—which, good luck doing that for a 12yo article) because that loses attribution, let alone if it contains copyright problems. Nardog (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Nardog; in scanning over this, I see that you're the nominator and that you've cited to the places where plagiarism occurred (and that Sdjones was actually a chronic problem). Where the merger suggestion was coming from was that many of the scandals referred to in the defective article were notable enough to have their own articles, that the topic of scandals itself is notable enough for its own article, and that it's unclear why some of those aren't referred to in the Political scandals in South Korea article.  I agree with you that articles that are almost entirely plagiarized should be deleted-- passing off a word-for-word copy of someone else's work as one's own is not acceptable under any circumstances.  Even when attributed, word-for-word quotations without the quotation marks should be avoided.  In any event, having two articles on the same content is redundant, and we should opt for the better of two choices.   Mandsford 18:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So what exactly do you think should happen? One can't merge an article that's about to be deleted into another because that nullifies the attribution, even if the portions being merged didn't contain plagiarism. The portions about both the Gwangju massacre and the cash-for-summit scandal which Piotrus merged into Political scandals in South Korea are in fact contributions by Sdjones, and goodness knows if they are plagiarized too (again, it's 12 years old—I find the the latter especially suspicious as it's written in unencyclopedic journalese, while I suspect the former may have been cut and pasted within Wikipedia, which would still be a violation of CC-BY-SA). Piotrus, only if you're down, what we can do is speedy delete the user page per WP:CSD, and delete the revisions of Political scandals in South Korea which contain text merged from the former (namely 856740453 to 856742680—I've revised the merged sections from scratch so they can be deleted now). Nardog (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am ok with this (through I believe you are overcomplicating issues, since we haven't even proven those particualar entries are plagiarised - however I do agree at least some are/were, since I now did a check of my own and found plagiarism problems). In either case, I appreciate you rewriting and even more, referencing the added part. Please note that I copied the rest to the article's talk, too. I am ok with deting that post, but first I think we should try to add the base facts, rewritten, to the main article. I'll try to help by providing refs/etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, but again, you shouldn't have copied the content to the talk page... That makes you (and us Wikipedia) culpable for plagiarism because, even if it didn't contain infringement, we would then be plagiarizing Sdjones (unless we don't delete the former article, but we can't not delete it because it contains plagiarism—damned if you do, damned if you don't).
 * Now I acknowledge that each instance of plagiarism by Sdjones found in the former article in question isn't all that serious and probably doesn't entail page or revision deletion by itself, but they add up to a serious violation and Sdjones' entire edit history is so rife with copyright violations that it's hard to imagine the article doesn't contain other plagiarism, unattributed close paraphrasing and intra-wiki copying that we haven't discovered, and because of that I just think it best for us to delete the page altogether for safety's sake.
 * We may keep the list of the incidents from the former article somewhere for later reference, but we can't copy paragraphs even on a talk page even temporarily, and we owe it to ourselves to use our own words. Nardog (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, I copied it before I realized it had those problems :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So how about this: We close this as speedy delete per WP:CSD, and simultaneously request that the revisions of Political scandals in South Korea and its talk that contain material copied from the page under discussion (namely 856740453 to 856742680 and 856740628 to 856889465, respectively) be deleted per WP:CRD (which in turn applies WP:G7)? That way we can put an end to this for good. Nardog (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, just leave the links/summary on the talk page, since I am using them to create proper articles/sections. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this satisfactory for you? If you need the text, I suggest you keep it for yourself locally. Nardog (talk) 12:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything is ok :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:32, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've now filed a request for closure. Nardog (talk) 06:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am happy to see User:Sdjones's edits on material ill-advisedly merged to be unmerged and his normal default attribution to be removed. I don't think attribution of User:Sdjones is required or wanted at Political_scandals_in_South_Korea, and deleting remnants from the history is a good idea.
 * However, get the closer of this MfD to do it, don't make it happen by creative complicated CSD requests. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.