Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Chamaemelum

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Contributor copyright investigation

This CCI cleanup subpage has been opened because concerns of repeated copyright violations from the listed contributor have been substantiated and further review of contributions is necessary. 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, and are encouraged to assist with accessing offline and paywalled sources.

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 Template:CCIlist 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 search engines, google books, or archives, 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 large portions of text presumptively, place {{subst:CCI|name=Contributor name}} on the article's talk page.
If you specifically locate infringement and remove large portions of the text (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 salvage, 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 did not 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

This editor was Community banned for disruptive editing/Fringe sourcing issues. Further examination at The Fringe Theories Noticeboard revealed some copyvio issues involving journals in their edits as well:

Tayside children's sleep questionnaire was closely phrased to the abstract here
Genetic nurture is a hodge podge of copied paragraphs from various journals
ADE model is an odd one, seems like a sort of AI-mangled copyvio (use of "we" and odd some jargon)

I think this editor might have been using AI to help generate these, which may explain the mangled nature of them. Given the Fringe issues and journals copied from, presumptive deletions are probably best used here. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also found their edits at ADE model odd because they used "we". They added copyrighted material onto the red meat article but it has been removed. On Wikipedia Commons, Chamaemelum has uploaded a lot of copyrighted photographs and graphs as their "own work". Examples, [1], [2], [3] Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chamaemelum is still uploading copyrighted photographs on Commons. I reported some of the photographs because they are using the incorrect copyright tags, after this was done, in revenge they are stalking me on Commons. The same user is uploading graphs as their own work but I find this unlikely [4]. This is a Commons issue, but the reason I raise it here because all of the images they are uploading about Ronald Fisher, polygenic scores and sample sizes will likely be inserted onto Wikipedia at some point. They are now creating dozens of stubs on simple.wikipedia, some of which are similar to what was deleted here [5]. I will check if any of the same copyright has been added. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]