Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Advice for admins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is to give newly arriving admins the help I could have done with when I started work on this (instead I had to pester User:Geni for instructions). Any additions? --Ngb ?!? 16:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Be bold and deletions

?!? wrote: Two maxims: Be bold, but temper this with the avoidance of copyright paranoia. i.e. don't shirk from deleting violations (articles can always be got back, anyway, though images can't) but don't delete things without checking them properly just because someone listed them here. Not everything listed here is actually a violation: separating those that are from those that aren't is up to you.

Mentioning "be bold" in "Copyright problems/Advice for admins" is disingeous. The concept explained on "be bold" wikipedia is in CREATING material, not DELETING material.

In fact, copyright is not mentioned once in the Be bold article.

I disagree - being timid in dealing with copyright violations led to a copyright violation languishing for a year on Winter Soldier Investigation. Nobody would fix it. Eventually it was addressed, but a year's worth of editing was lost. Be Bold and fix the damn problems when you come across them. --Duk 02:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Like the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales said:
  • "Finally, we should never forget as a community that we are the vanguard of a knowledge revolution that will transform the world. We are the leading edge innovators and leaders of what is becoming a global movement to free knowledge from proprietary constraints. 100 years from now, the idea of a proprietary textbook or encyclopedia will sound as quaint and remote as we now think of the use of leeches in medical science." ---Free Knowledge requires Free Software and Free File Formats
I have bigger issues with the the goals of wikipedia and how it contradicts zealous volunteer copyright police like yourself. I don't want to waste time arguing about 2 sentences with you here.--Travb 23:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 7 day delay

I found Eric Stern on new page patrol and tagged it as a copyvio. The uploader has submitted a revised version. Assuming I can verify that the enw version ios not a copyvio, is there any reason to wait 7 days before delting the infringing version and repalcign it with the revised version? The infrigign version was a direct copy&paste, and since a revised version wa ssubmitted it seems there will be no claim of permission -- besides the revision is more NPOV anyway. DES (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What about WP:CP after taking care of an article?

I followed the procedure to delete an article and replace it with new, non-infringing text on the article/Temp page. All well and good. But should anything be done with its entry on WP:CP? I struck it out and added an HTML comment about what I did. I doubt that's the proper procedure since the page isn't full of stricken lines, but I didn't want another admin to come along later and think the new text is the old, infringing text and delete it. (I'm new to this function – I'd put up the original copyvio notice, and the author of the new text notified me that a new article was ready.) Thanks. — Kbh3rdtalk 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and remove the entry at WP:CP (see step 5). --Duk 04:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion reason

Is there any specific message that should be entered as the deletion reason when deleting a copyvio? Just saying "copyvio" (or similar) doesn't seem sufficient to indicate that it has been through WP:CP, checked that it is a real violation, etc. --TheParanoidOne 19:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I usually leave the summary 'WP:CP, no untainted revisions' if deleting the whole thing or 'WP:CP, will restore untainted revisions' if there are non-copyvio versions in the history that I have to restore. --Nick Boalch ?!? 19:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why delete?

The previous version of this page asked admins to revert the article back to untainted version if possible or delete the the article if that is not possible. The current version says that the article needs to be deleted and the versions undeleted. It appears unnecessary if a simple revert can perform the same goal easily. Any reasons as to why it was changed to the current version and any pointers to policy that can indicate the need for the change? --Gurubrahma 05:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the old version of this page stated that for copyvios where "some of the revisions [in the page history] are clean, delete the article, then use the undelete function to restore the untainted edits." I kept the instructions that were there before. The instructions for tagging a copyvio, at Wikipedia:Copyright problems, state "Revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can"; that is, no need to add to a backlog when it can be put into an archive. But the idea for the admin instructions is that they are already there investigating the copyvio and have the tools to delete it. Still, it might warrant a note about it not being absolutely necessary, it is a hassle to selectively delete only a few revisions. —Centrx→talk • 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the logs?

Why has Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Log not been updated since May 31, 2006? Is the bot that kept it up no longer running? Is this a problem, or are they no longer considered important? (If so, the language in item 7 should probably be rewritten. --MCB 22:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I would gather people stopped updating it because it is unnecessary and tedious. The logs are still there, following the same naming format and you can get at them just by typing in with the right date, there just isn't a page with a list. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need to clarify process

This has been addressed in a couple of ways here, but I'm still cloudy on accepted process. Let's say you have a situation like this: article permalink Used hardware; talk page permalink Talk: Used hardware. The article is tagged for speedy deletion, a proper 'holdon' has been lodged, and the author indicates on the talk page that copyright permission is being pursued. Now, my instinct based on what I've read is that I should a) delete the article, b) do not delete the associated talk page, c) inform the author that undeletion should be pursued once copyright permission is secured and confirmed (with reference to Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed). An alternative approach would be to PROD the article with the reason being 'copyright permission being pursued by author - delete in proper timeframe should permission not be confirmed by PROD expiry'. I recently binge-deleted about 10 articles that were copy-vios that could eventually reappear here after permission is secured and ... I feel a little dirty about that, so I wanted to confirm what the specific recommended path is as of the end of 2006 (this assumes that a non-copyvio version is not available in the history). Thanks for your advice. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark it as a {{copyvio}} and list it per the Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions. Since it's a copyvio, the text shouldn't be used until the permission is received. Therefore, copyvio is a better solution then prod as it blanks the page and is the "proper" process for copyvios anyway. You can also list the fact that the editor is attempting to get permission on the log page. The people reviewing the copyvio listing will probably pay more attention to that then the folks cleaning up prods. -- JLaTondre 02:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you ... WP:CP has clear instructions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This page is advice for dealing with copyvios that have been listed. Also, most of the people who say they have permission are either lying or the copyright holder does not actually give permission under the GFDL when its freeness is explained to them. —Centrx→talk • 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for advice on procedures

Hi, I'm new to the admin role, but want to help with the copyright backlog if I can... a couple of questions for more experienced admins:

  • Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins says that once you're done with a copyvio, you should delete it. But from the current page, it looks as if people use strikethrough, which also seems much more reasonable - it leaves a clearer log of what happened. Is there a need to update instructions?
  • I see that some "difficult" cases are left hanging - in one case, the website with the claimed source seems to be permanently off-net. Where do we keep notes on what people have tried in such cases?

Hoping to help, but wanting to be careful... --Alvestrand 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Strikethrough is indeed better than removing it from the list, it makes it easier to check later. Of course, if you do a whole day completely, you only have to remove the day from the list. No need for strikethrough then.
It never happened to me, I often find it with google cache. I guess the best thing is to remove the tag and leave a note on the article's talk page. Unless it's really obvious it's a copyvio, then I would still delete it. Garion96 (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In the past they were always simply removed, and I don't think there is a significant problem with that because the full list is still available in each day's page history. Also, if you can't access a website, or the website has changed its contents, try The Internet Archive. —Centrx→talk • 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on partial copyvios and deleting

I just deleted a copyvio'ed section from Adam and Eve (found the same section before the edit that had replaced it with copyvioed text and restored it). The section was added in [1] - more than a month ago. That means the offending text will be visible in the article history over 50-odd revisions. Does anyone care? --Alvestrand 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I would purge the copyvio. Delete the article and restore the revisions before the copyvio was added. Garion96 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
April 15 to May 29 is now missing from the log of Adam and Eve. Thanks for the advice! --Alvestrand 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
're welcome. Thanks for helping out here. Garion96 (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
If there were non-trivial intervening additions to the article in those 50-odd revisions then this method does not work because the authors of the page need to be in the page history. —Centrx→talk • 23:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clear copyvio on article creation, but useful edits since

The advice is to revert to clean version if possible, else delete the article. What if the 1st edit was the copyvio, but useful additional material was since added and we know that the topic is notable ? Deletion of the article would seem wrong (it is a notable topic), but clearly bulk of article needs to go, leaving just a stub.

The article in question is Evans syndrome (it is a real condition), my attack on its wikistyling and referencing/footnotes were these (My increasing realisation something wrong with article layout, led me to try to fix the references and the Maddison Foundation link proved a total rendition of the original article). David Ruben Talk 03:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If the useful additional material be distinct paragraphs or perhaps even distinct sentences, then it can be included in a new stub. Otherwise, and perhaps even then, the article is a derivative work of the original copyrighted work and remains under that original copyright. —Centrx→talk • 20:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, a point I had not considered... I'll have a go at marking up a fresh stub for the topic - thanks :-) David Ruben Talk 01:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice for editors?

Is there something special about Copyright problems, as opposed to other deletion processes, or can non-admins clear copyvios and strike through them once cleared just as well as admins?--Doug.(talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If the page is deleted, strike it out. If the page and its history is certainly not a copyright infringement, then it can be struck out with an explanation in the list. If old revisions are not infringing, the page can be reverted to those revisions, but an administrator still should delete in the intervening revisions. —Centrx→talk • 03:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I figured this out, but thanks - really, I was questioning the page name mostly. However, the instructions don't say anything about deleting the intervening revisions, they say that these will only be deleted if requested by the copyright holder.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
On this page it doesn't explicitly define what to do. On the one hand "If it is a minor part of the article, just remove the copyrighted text from the article." On the other hand "If there are clean revisions in the history, delete the article, then use the undelete function to restore the untainted revisions."
On the one hand, a great many copyright infringements are simply reverted and unknown, and discovering and deleting them would be an onerous or impossible burden. On the other hand, if a copyright infringement is here it has been reported and documented and is in the queue for disposition. Most importantly, Wikipedia:Copyright problems is the avenue copyright holders may take and may be advised to take, so some listings here are requests from the copyright holder. —Centrx→talk • 05:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
When I referenced the instructions I actually meant Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions, wherein it says to revert to the clean version but essentially not to worry about the history.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bold rewrite

It's fair to say I've spent a considerable amount of time at WP:CP over the last three months. When I got here, there was a shameful 45-day backlog of problems without resolution. We managed to kill that backlog a few days ago. Now that it's gone, it's time to address this terribly outdated 'advice' page. Confusing is the nicest thing I can say about it - there have been no significant updates or changes to it since October 2006, and we've had policy changes in that 18 months that made these instructions almost obsolete.

In 2007, WP:CSD#G12 was changed to include all pages without assertion of permission/ownership, regardless of date or length of history. These instructions completely glossed over that and still referred to the old 48-hour time frame for G12 deletion. The steps didn't flow from a to b to c, when the process we actually use to work with these problems is the same every time.

So, I boldly submitted my revision today and I invite everyone to look it over, fix it, switch it around, and, of course, comment. The images portion is the trickiest, because we've got 7 or 8 guidelines that say to go 'elsewhere' for copyright problems, but they're all different.

I used a mishmash of these three in the Images section, but I'm not at all sure I did it correctly. If someone knows the right answer(s), I'm all ears. My worry, though, is that there is no right answer, and that we've actually got a big mash-up of conflicting guidelines, processes, advice, and instructions.

I went bold because these instructions were inconsistent and I felt a change was important. Thanks in advance for all your comments. - KrakatoaKatie 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This appears longer and more complicated. The Articles and Images section need to be integrated into the step-by-step guide. For example, "How much text was copied into the article? Was it 4,500 words, or was it a three-sentence paragraph?" is part of the Investigation section, but there is no guidance on what that is supposed to imply; and the only way to figure it out is to read the whole article. —Centrx→talk • 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)