User talk:Middayexpress/Archive 8

Edit warring on Jamil Ghanim

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jamil Ghanim. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Copyright problems, Jamil Ghanim

This article was listed at the copyright problems board for administrator review on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 December 2. I have evaluated the article as an uninvolved administrator, and I find that the article is and has been a copyright problem since its third edit. While I appreciate that you have attempted to revise, I'm afraid that what you have done is create a derivative work, as the material paraphrases the source far too closely for us to publish. Except when sources are free (public domain or compatibly licensed), we must put material completely into our own language. Copyright laws of the United States, which govern Wikipedia, cover more than the precise arrangement of words in a sentence, which is why even unauthorized translations of foreign language works are copyright violations, even though not a single word remains from the original.

There are additional suggestions for revision at the article's talk. Note, though, that I have also hidden from public view your comparison of your work with the original, as you have essentially reproduced the majority (if not the entirety) of http://www.oud.eclipse.co.uk/ghanim.html at that talk page. This, also, is a problem under Wikipedia's policies, as we are only permitted to quote brief sections of copyrighted text, and the material at that page is plainly reserved to David Parfitt.

The article is being relisted at the copyright problems board to allow further time to address these concerns. You must not restore the text to publication in the meantime. It will be revisited after one week. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The material is not a copyright violation much less a derivative work, nor have you proven that it is. I have thoroughly addressed this and all of your other claims on the article's talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 03:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Middayexpress. I was asked to provide another neutral opinion on this. There is no doubt that, as written, the article is a derivative work. The fact that one can take the entire WP article and break it down side-by-side with the entire original source (as you did on the talk page) is a clear demonstration that it is a derivative work. In law, this is a "common sense" issue -- meaning: if a reasonable person can see the new article is a substantial retelling of the source, than it is a derivative.

The question is: Is the derivative work different enough from the original to earn its own copyright? In order not to be a plagiarism of the source, the differences in the new work must not be trivial. Slight alterations of wording, the use of synonyms, and rearranging phrasing will not cut it. There must be new material and the entire work must be substantially different from the original.

Unfortunately, this article is a plagiarism of the the source. In your examples (now redacted_, #1 #2 #4 and #5 were derivatives with only trivial alterations. On its own, I think #3 begins to drift toward original language. But taken in its entirety, the WP article is a only a slight reworded version of the source and cannot be considered an original work. (Note: there is often confusion between original research and original work. This is not my meaning)

One of the best methods for avoiding this type of WP:Close paraphrasing, is to write the article without the benefit of a single source. One should read multiple reliable sources, then set them aside and write an entire article from scratch (without referring to the sources). Afterward, compare the article with the sources to make certain that your new article retains the meaning of the sourced material. Then add the citations. I recommend that this article should be revised in that manner. Unfortunately, it does take more work to do it that way. Good luck with it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion Cactus. However, I must disagree that you are providing a "neutral" opinion, since, judging by your talk page, Moonriddengirl is apparently a regular visitor to it & of course since she specifically asked you to comment on this dispute which she herself is involved in, although you have never edited the article or had anything to do with it to begin with. You write that "the fact that one can take the entire WP article and break it down side-by-side with the entire original source (as you did on the talk page) is a clear demonstration that it is a derivative work." Uh, no it isn't. It is ironically a demonstration that one is willing to actually prove that the material is not plagiarized per WP:PARAPHRASE's own instructions: "On the talk page, cite specific passages alongside the corresponding passage from the source to highlight their similarity; this will provide objective evidence of close paraphrasing." The article also uses multiple references, not just one as you have implied. Lastly, I don't see how you could glean that "#1 #2 #4 and #5 were derivatives with only trivial alterations" when you posted on the talk page well after Moonriddengirl had long gotten rid of my side-by-side, paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of said passages. And even if you had somehow managed to view said posts in time, Moonriddengirl's convenient deletion of the talk page's history makes it impossible for me or anyone else for that matter to even so much as verify let alone disprove your claims, as she has effectively deleted all traces of said side-by-side, paragraph-by-paragraph juxtapositions. Middayexpress (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that a lot of these problems can be avoided anyway, as the source in question does not meet the standard for a reliable source, especially not the BLP standards. The website from which it originates is a self-published collection of mini-essays about the author's favorite oud players. There is nothing to indicate that the author has any editorial oversight.

Whether the material is a copyvio or not, it should still be removed. — Bdb484 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC) (crossposted to article talk)

Actually, contrary to what you have insinuated above, the article has multiple references. This has been repeatedly explained to you as well. The only way you could conceivably get rid of the entire Ghanim article is through notability, which, of course, is an avenue that has already been closed to you. Furthermore, the Ghanim web article is indeed a reliable source because it was written by David Parfitt, who is a recognized authority on the oud with a presence throughout the web. Middayexpress (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment posted at article talk, which may be the best place to leave further comments. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

←You are severely mischaracterizing this situation. I am not involved in a dispute. I am a neutral administrator responding to a listing at the copyright problem board. I have no other interest in this material, and I have never encountered you or it before. Of course, CactusWriter and I confer; there are only a handful of administrators on Wikipedia who routinely deal with copyright material. I routinely confer with all of them. As a neutral administrator, I am telling you that your choices here are to rewrite the article or get permission to replicate the text. Otherwise it is going to be deleted. And any contributor remotely interested in viewing the material is able to do so, because it is conveniently linked from the article's face. Your content, too, is still visible in the article's history. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Moonriddengirl. You were a neutral administrator until you started availing yourself of your administrative tools to make it impossible for me to prove that the material is not plagiarized. This includes first concealing and then completely deleting my own comments on the article's talk page, where I attempted to prove that the edit in question was not a copright infringement. This has all been painstakingly laid out by me on the article's talk page, so I'm not going to pursue it any further. You also cannot delete the article on the grounds of so-called "plagiarism" since the article cites multiple references besides that one source you claim it is a copyright violation of. The gentleman the article is about is also notable, a fact which even the administrator OrangeMike before you was good enough to admit. I don't know you either and have nothing against you, actually. To be honest, I don't even particularly care about the Ghanim article. What I don't appreciate is being treated like a random troll, when all I am actually guilty of is creating a well-written, well-formatted, and yes, well-sourced article. Middayexpress (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As I have explained, anyone who wishes can see the original article and your content. Furthermore, CactusWriter like other administrators can see the deleted versions of the talk page. I will not delete the article on the grounds of plagiarism; as I have explained to you several times, the problem is copyright. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the article's content here. I'm talking about the article's talk page's original content, which is indeed inaccessible to any and everyone who is not an administrator -- myself included -- since you deleted that talk page's entire editing history. This means that I cannot even address Cactus' remarks when he states, for example, that "#1 #2 #4 and #5 were derivatives with only trivial alterations" because I have no idea just what exactly the numbers #1 #2 #4 and #5 refer to, and more importantly, neither do any other editors who are not involved in this dispute or whom you did not personally contact for comment. Middayexpress (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

First, you have a misunderstanding of the rules of neutral opinion. An administrator does not lose their neutrality when they weigh in with an opinion or take administrative action to make corrections per Wikipedia policy (See WP:UNINVOLVED). My own neutrality is not affected by my familiarity with Moonriddengirl. As she has informed you, there are relatively few WP administrators who have experience with our copyright issues -- and we regularly consult with one another to be certain of our decisions. We do not always agree. In this case, we do.

Moonriddengirl was correct in deleting the copy-pasting of an entire source on the talk page. Copyright violations are not permitted on WP, anywhere -- and must be removed. You had already been informed about this. (My own comments were not posted long after the deletion. In fact, they were an edit conflict with that action. Moonriddengirl and I were editing at the same time. Unfortunately, I am a very slow writer.) So I am sorry that you could no longer see the source on the talk page. However, in truth, that wasn't necessary -- the source is available and your derivation could be seen in the article edit history.

Please stop obfuscating the issue. You have claimed the article is not a derivative. It is. A top-to-bottom similarity between the source and the WP article exists. You have claimed multiple sources. This does not matter when the article is a clearly derived from a single main source. You have claimed it is not a WP:Close paraphrasing. This is a common sense call -- and the multiple editors who have weighed-in have judged it the same. You are now claiming non-neutrality of any administrator offering an opinion. This is only an attempt to misdirect from the key issue -- the advice of every editor here has been that the article should be rewritten. You are now arguing for the sake of argument. At this point, you can rewrite the text, obtain permission to for use of the copyrighted source, or the article text will need to be removed. (NOTE: I have written substantially the same comment on the article talk page) — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl did not lose neutrality for simply "weighing in" with her opinion nor is this "only an attempt to misdirect from the key issue". She lost it when she used her administrative tools to make it impossible for me to prove that the material she claimed was plagiarized actually wasn't. Specifically, she lost it when she deleted the talk page's entire editing history under the false pretext that it is "housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup" per the G6. Technical deletions clause of the Criteria for Speedy deletion, thereby instantly invalidating many of the links I had already included in my posts on the talk page. Deleting the talk page's history also, of course, ultimately made it impossible for me to retrieve that side-by-side, paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of the text to demonstrate that the material wasn't, in fact, plagiarized. This, in turn, had the effect of allowing Moonriddengirl and anyone else to claim whatever it is they want about the text as though these claims had not already long ago been debunked by me on the article's talk page. To claim that something is a copyright violation and then repeatedly deprive the accused party of the opportunity and, indeed, the very means of proving that it isn't as she has done is indeed the nadir of unfairness.

Furthermore, Moonriddengirl was not "correct" in deleting any part of my posts. For starters, WP:TALK expressly forbids modifying other users' comments. Secondly, WP:PARAPHRASE specifically instructs that: "On the talk page, cite specific passages alongside the corresponding passage from the source to highlight their similarity; this will provide objective evidence of close paraphrasing", which is actually the very reason why I added that side-by-side, paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of the source material and the Wiki text in the first place. What's more, I got wind of that Wikipedia rule page to begin with ironically because Moonriddengirl herself pointed me to it, and in her very first post on the article's talk page to boot. Am I now all of a sudden to believe that what that Wiki page states is not to be trusted much less heeded just because it is perhaps inconvenient for certain parties? I beg to differ. Fourthly, the material was not a "copyright violation" because I already supplied footnotes for every phrase that I posted on the article's talk page. And even if it were, the relevant How to use article talk pages section of WP:TALK states that: "The talk page can be used to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found. New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article."

The article is indeed not "derivative", nor have you or anyone else proven that it is; you've just stated that you believe it is, which is not the same thing as actually proving that it is. This has been amply and repeatedly demonstrated by myself on the article's talk page, so I'm not going to delve into this any further here. And yes, it does very much matter whether the article is based on more than one source because that establishes the subject's notability, a fact which even the administrator OrangeMike admitted the article's subject had already met. It also does not matter whether you personally believe the material was a close paraphrase; the question is, can you prove that it is per WP:Close paraphrasing's specific criteria for establishing whether or not it is (see, for example, my talk page post dated 20:36, 12 December 2009 for more on this). Lastly, it is not true that every editor here has indicated that the article should be rewritten; only the original complainant, Moonriddengirl & yourself have after she personally contacted you for comment. The administrator OrangeMike was ingenuous enough to admit that he might've been mistaken; and he did this immediately after I had first posted that side-by-side comparison of the source material & the supposedly "plagiarized" text that Moonriddengirl later got rid of, which is precisely why I take exception to this.

I've already indicated to Moonriddengirl that I don't particularly have any strong feelings about the article (or even the disputing parties, for that matter), and I meant it. I don't, however, appreciate being essentially handcuffed by having my comments deleted for what clearly amounts to no legitimate reason. Middayexpress (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

←The article has been deleted in accordance with copyright policy. While I had relisted in courtesy to you to allow you additional time to revise concerns, you indicate you did not intend to rewrite or verify permission. Hence, the relist is pointless. I have closed the listing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's why it was deleted. lol Middayexpress (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)