Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Darius Dhlomo Drive

Technical refinement solution
Following on from this conversation:

An ability to search through DD's non-minor edits that did not add table elements would be a very powerful tool in identifying copyright issues. Last time round, I found only one instance where an edit of multiple sentences of prose was original work. VernoWhitney did not have the time to work on such a programmatic solution. Are there any other editors with a programming background who could assist us in this way? SFB 10:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Went and sent a message to User:Legoktm about making a bot to get rid of the trivial table diffs. Hopefully that works out. Wizardman  15:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I ran a test [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AContributor_copyright_investigations%2FDarius_Dhlomo_2&diff=550323762&oldid=550323298 here], and my spotcheck looked good, if someone else could also do a quick check to make sure everything is ok, I'll run the script against the other pages. Legoktm (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've glanced at all of them, and they look fine. Hut 8.5 19:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, the script ran through all of the not finished pages and removed quite a few diffs. I also noticed that there were some diffs that had been revdel'd, but not marked as done yet. Should/can these be marked in some way? Legoktm (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming the revision was revdeled for being a copyright violation, then yes, they ought to be marked as done (and as copyvios). I've come across a number of these myself. Hut 8.5 08:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, but how do you note it if one revision out of 5 diffs for an article has been deleted? Legoktm (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The process isn't really designed to handle that situation. Could you post a list of the articles here, or somewhere else? I don't mind checking the remaining diffs. Hut 8.5 08:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I get a second opinion
I removed a load of content from Michelle McKeehan presumptively - it looks likely and both sources cited are inaccessible, even through the Internet Wayback Machine. Various people are now reverting me claiming that the fact it was unblanked some years ago means it isn't a copyright violation. I would appreciate it if someone else could take a look without me getting into an edit war. Hut 8.5 23:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just got a note on my talk page about another questionable inwind check, so we can't use those as word of god. Because of the situation with Darius, we have to presume things are copyvios, unfortunately. They're free to rewrite, but no blanket revert. Wizardman  23:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)