Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/Communicat

Winer's book released
The online version of Winer's book Between the Lies has been released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL. The relevant release notice is posted here. I expect this will close all of the Winer-related issues on this investigation, as the use of his material is no longer a violation of copyright. It would still be helpful if some investigation were made of the other contributions to ensure that there are no other violations (there had been one non-Winer violation found, but it has already been fixed). --Habap (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While that means the edits are no longer copyright violations, my understanding is they are still plagiarism of Winer. Further, Winer is clearly not a reliable source, which means he sources cited by Winer may not support his views. Edward321 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The real question here is whether the website truth-hertz.net is authorized to release this content. It depends on who owns the copyright. A couple of years ago, we had to remove extensive content added by a published author to articles from his books when it was discovered that his publisher did not release their interest in the material. As WP:DCM notes, "If you are the original author but the rights have been assigned to your publisher, you have given up the ability to license the work to us." Anybody know anything about the contract practices of Southern Universities Press? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Southern University Press is based out of a London flat. Winer's book appears to be its only publication. As such, its contract practices can only be speculated on. Edward321 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Southern University Press' doesn't appear to have a website. The British Library lists seven books as being published by a company of this name between 1949 and 2007, though they're on very diverse topics. The book in question here is still available for purchase on Amazon.co.uk: Nick-D (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: --Moonriddengirl (talk)'s assertion that the "real question here is whether the website truth-hertz.net is authorized to release this content". I'd suggest the real question here is why has everyone got it wrong.


 * The CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL licenses were revoked by the author and copyright holder because Wikipedia does not have a functional mechanism for countering systemic bias. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. A quick glance at the copyright notice of the googlebooks online version of Between the Lies will confirm that the copyright holder of the work is stated clearly to be the author Stan Winer. Same applies to other online versions, both authorised and unauthorised, and also the Copyright notice at Winer's official website truth-hertz.net where the book is reproduced in full. Southern Universities Press is not the copyright holder. Winer is the copyright holder. So why all the confusion? (Rhetorical question). 196.215.59.246 (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That still means that Communicat's edits were plagiarizing Winer. Considering Winer is not the only person Communicat was plagiarizing; I think all of Communicat's edits should be removed to be on the safe side.  Regardless, Winer's work is a non-notable fringe work and has no place in an encyclopedia of any kind. 01:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When Communicat was taking material from this book (including attributing text from it to other sources) it was marked as being under copyright. During the arbitration case it moved to a creative commons licence after the copyright violation issues were raised (Communicat claimed to have asked the author of the book to release it under a CC license). Now that the case is over it's moved back to being under copyright (though the website isn't loading at the moment). Interesting. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only "interesting" thing here is the evasive manner and method whereby Nick-D and others have used convoluted arguments and fuzzy logic revolving around copyright technicalities to sidestep the central issue. That central issue concerns essentially the inherent systemic bias of the WW2 and related wikipedia articles, which attempt to regurgitate simplistically the dominant Western historical narrative, to the total exclusion of divergent narratives. That is what the dispute was about; it has very little to do with "plagiarism". Nick-D and others appear to have neither the grace nor the historical integrity to admit this, and they get away with it because there is no functional wikipedia mechanism for countering systemic bias. 196.215.76.234 (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, and contrary to Nick-D's claim, the online version of the aptly-titled book Between the Lies loads pefectly well. See for yourself if you don't believe me. 196.215.76.234 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, during the NPOV abitration case that Communicat brought against Edward321, Habap, and Nick=D, (the commentators here), Communicat disclosed that he and Winer were in fact the same person. The alleged "plagiarism" by Communicat of his own work was thus not plagiarism at all, and the Arbitration committee recognised this. If Edward321, Habap, and Nick=D disagreed with Arbcom's decision, they were free to appeal that decision, which they did not. It is typical of Edward321 in particular that, well after the dust has settled, he tries to sneak in a proposal that all of Communicat's many edits should be reverted as "fringe" and "plagiarism".
 * Observers, if any, may care to note that what is considered to be a "fringe" position in NATO member states is in fact a mainstream position in many non-NATO member countries, and as such it merits inclusion in any modern military history article if such article is to be encyclopedic in the true sense of the word. The world is a big place; it does not consist exclusively of NATO member countries, America especially, and any failure to recognise this is indicative of a blinkered, flat-earth mentality.
 * Moreover, Edward321, Habap, and Nick=D, during the Arbcom case, denied vehemently that they comprise an editorial clique. Yet, here they are again, still ganging up together against the content of past NPOV edits submitted by the since departed Communicat on the basis of well researched sources that just happen to be inconsistent with Edward321, Habap, and Nick=D's own insular and peculiar sense of historiography. 196.215.76.234 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI The commons license is non-revokable. See http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#What_if_I_change_my_mind.3F Not having a functional system to counter systemic bias, whether true or not, is not breaking the license. However, since the book isn't WP:RELIABLE, it's unlikely to be used on wikipedia. Communicat flatly denied that he was Winer here. Are you Communicat or Winer? ( Hohum  @ ) 18:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your tendentious interpretation of CC revocation is unreliable. I suggest you read it properly to understand what it really means relative to the matter at issue here. In any event, CC has legal applicability only in the American state of Florida where Wikipedia servers are located. It does not invalidate the copyright owner's right to do with his copyright whatever suits him.
 * As regards the question of whether or not the erstwhile Communicat is Stan Winer: you are exhibiting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:DEADHORSE. The question was dealt with satisfactorily in evidence during the abovementioned arbitration case in which you yourself were a participant.
 * And yes, the present and newly registered username "Communikat" is in fact the erstwhile Communicat and the above IP 196.215.76.234 (talk signatory who now rejoins wikipedia under a new username following a refreshing six-months sabbatical. Communikat (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As regards the linkage between systemic bias and revocation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses: it will be recalled that, while the Arbcom case was still in progress, many of the erstwhile Communicat's painstaking edits citing reliable sources, in a range or articles, were rapidly deleted/reverted by some of the above editors on the grounds of alleged "plagiarism" and/or "copyright violation", even before Arbcom reached its own decision which effectively cleared Communicat of those charges. The editors who deleted/reverted those edits  had three months subsequently during which to restore those edits. They failed to do so. IMO that comprises further evidence of systemic POV bias. Consequent revocation of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL licenses were under those circumstances a justifiable quid pro quo.
 * This discussion is now closed as far as I am concerned. Communikat (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)