Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/20091230

Sanity check
I'm going to ask for a check after my first 5 (down in section 5). I've just been taking out the copyvio's I can see and noting in the edsumm's it was a copyvio removal. Should I really be putting in talk page notices too?

Also, on Terry Garland, I can't OK it personally. It has a sentence cited to a print source, and the language and structure ("One of the more" clause, "rehashes ingredients", "whilst concocting"), no I'd want to verify the print source. What sez youze? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow! Using the talk page? Outrageous! :D (And I mean this talk, btw. I don't think I've ever seen it used on a CCI.) Talk notices give nice little block warnings to people and at one time I considered them OMG essential!! However, not every admin who works copyvios does, and I am far more interested in expeditiously addressing especially these CCIs, since they can drag out for months. As long as the article is clean, nothing else really matters.


 * I am trying to verify one print source, but there will come a time when we will have to decide if it merits following Copyright violations and preemptively removing major contributions. There's no question that there is major infringement here across multiple articles; at this point, we can't presume that anything is clear, unfortunately. :/


 * And thank you so much for pitching in. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about the CCI and cclean template-subst's mentioned in the page instructions, if it helps to specify which talk page I meant (in this case, the article talk). My approach for the simple cases so far is that I can take any copyvio's out of "public display" and leave the text for potential rewritera, in the case of web content I'm already doing that when I identify what has been copied upon it's removal. For a formal CCI, no, I wouldn't be wanting to note everything at the user's talk. Something has gone more wrong here than a user, there is a failure of wikipedia somewhere to not be clear on what is acceptable, I just want to clean this little spillage up quietly (which I will continue at now). Thanks & more opinions always welcxome! :) Franamax (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, I'm not expressing myself very well. Sorry. I'm in full steam ahead mode. :) I knew you meant the article's talk. I think cclean is optional. I would probably use CCI, since in that case removal is presumptive and contributors may rightfully be confused by it. :) I tend to default to tagging articles with {{subst:copyvio}} rather than just cleaning, if content is extensive. I'm not honestly sure if that's the best approach. I feel like it softens the blow for other contributors, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it would be better to just roll the clock back a year or so and leave a clean article. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that was what you meant, just making sure. This ship is still undergoing sea-trials and we're trying out a new kind of environmentally-friendly steam. :) The examples I've seen so far are just straightforward "copy starts here / copy ends here" bits, so it seems easiest to just remove them from view with an appropriate comment. If rescuers wish to view and reword, that's fine. If they choose instead to revert my change clearly tagged as copyvio removal, well, no-one should be confused about that, right? Franamax (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As a potential "rescuer" of some of these articles, let me know if you'd like my opinion on these matters. I've left a related comment at Talk:Al Martino.  I would add that it would help me (and others) if you and others flagging violations could agree a consistent approach between you, on whether to blank whole articles or only sections (where both options exist, obviously). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Between this and the other CCIs, there are thousands of articles waiting for review. I do not watchlist them, but list them at CP for revisiting in a week, so it's a good idea to let me know at my talk page or somewhere else I might notice if you want my attention.


 * With respect to your note there, the goal here is to get allegedly unlawfully published material off of Wikipedia as quickly as possible. If I see that the contributor has added a small amount of suspect text, I remove it. If he has contributed substantially to the article, I've been blanking it to alert interested contributors to the problem and give them time to be part of cleanup. I do not have time to verify the extensiveness of the copying. Evidence of any copying at all is more than sufficient, given that it is within policy to presumptively remove all major contributions by this user without any additional evidence that these are infringements. (See Copyright violations.) We can afford to evaluate carefully with single-article issues. We can't, when there are literally thousands of articles involved.


 * Franamax, your approach is more within instructions than mine, anyway, and quicker to boot. :) Given that another contributor requested that we simply revert to clean this morning, I'll default to it, then. I'll only blank the article when he is the creator, and the article must be rewritten or deleted altogether. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)