User:Mkativerata/Zozo2kx

The periods of editing

It is quite easy to break the editing history down into 6 discrete periods, separated by wikibreaks. See [1]. In my userspace I've created a temporary CCI page for each period. The periods are:

• User:Mkativerata/Zozo2kx/Period 1 – March 2008 to March 2009 – In this period there is significant copy-pasting of tracts of text from non-free sources.
• User:Mkativerata/Zozo2kx/Period 2 – June 2009 to August 2009 – In this period there is significant copy-pasting of tracts of text from non-free sources.
• User:Mkativerata/Zozo2kx/Period 3 – November 2009 to May 2010 – In this period there is very close paraphrasing (eg Forestry in Syria and Yalbugha Mosque). The close paraphrasing is so close as to give rise to a real copyright problem, although it is not to the extent of the outright copy-pasting evident in the first 2 periods.
• User:Mkativerata/Zozo2kx/Period 4 – February 2011 to April 2011 – This is a fairly small period of editing in which, at the most, there is low-medium grade close paraphrasing, such as Saleh al-Ali, from [2] and others.
• User:Mkativerata/Zozo2kx/Period 5 – January 2012 to February 2012 - Similar to Period 4 (eg Abdullah Atfeh from [3])
• User:Mkativerata/Zozo2kx/Period 6 – July 2012 to present – Similar to Period 4 (eg Anwar Bannud from [4], which involves what would be quite low grade close paraphrasing except for the fact that the whole article takes the whole source).

All this is consistent with what was already suspected: that there was a significant problem in the early editing history that has become, incrementally, less extensive over time.

The Archnet website

One thing that concerns me deeply is the extent of copy-pasting from one website across multiple articles on Syrian buildings. This has happened in Periods 1 and 2, and to a slightly lesser extent, Period 3. It has happened to the point where, regrettably, Wikipedia has become a mirror of a large part of Archnet's content. It is quite clear that it is not a free source. I think we have a particular obligation (moral, legal, whatever, it doesn't matter) to this website, given the extent of the copying, to ensure the removal of the content as soon as possible now that we are aware of it.

I am not at all comfortable, in these circumstances, with opening a CCI and just putting it on the backlog. Accordingly, I propose the approach set out below.

Prioritisation

I propose to set up 3 subpages for a CCI:

• A subpage entitled Top Priority, covering Periods 1 and 2. This would be dealt with by a special process that is nonetheless fully within our presumptive removal policy. That process is as follows. Immediately after opening the CCI I will blank every article on the subpage that (a) was created by the CCI subject and involves substantive text, (b) hasn't already been cleaned and (c) has had no other significant contributions, with a template that links to a single page explaining the blanking. I'll then list them all on a special daily listing at
  WP:AN
  to ask for administrator assistance to delete all the pages. I'll cover the contributions not within (a), (b) and (c) (which won't be a big job; most will fall within (a), (b) and (c)).
• A subpage entitled High Priority, covering Period 3. This would be dealt with like a normal CCI. Theoretically it could be included in the process I've suggested above, but that might just be a little too blunt. Anyway, the approach to Period 3 can be re-assessed once Periods 1 and 2 are dealt with.
• A subpage entitled Normal Priority, covering Periods 4 to 6. This would be dealt with like a normal CCI (ie sit around on the backlog!), although there would be a note to editors to ask them to focus on the High Priority subpage first.

What happens now

Unless there are any objections to this course I will open the CCI by the end of the weekend.