Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations/20220720

Requested move 20 September 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW-withdrawn. Apologies for misunderstanding the privacy concerns. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 19:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 → Contributor copyright investigations/Martinevans123 – Naming the investigations case page after the investigated user seems to be standard, such as on SPI and LTA, in addition to many CCI subpages also being named after the investigated user. I do not see any good reason to do otherwise here. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @Mellohi! Unlike those processes, it has been decade long tradition at CCI to name cases after dates if the subject's username is a real one or there are other privacy concerns. See template:CCIlist for several examples of this. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Already long seen the other date-named subpages, but decided to start with just this one to avoid trainwrecking. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this should be brought up at WT:CCI if you're seeking a change of all dated names. I would personally be opposed to it for my aforementioned reasons. There are some very real privacy concerns and other BEANS concerns for good faith users subjected to CCIs. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 06:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose moving this, or any other current case with a date name. CCI pages are created as a convenient way for editors to sort through edits from prolific but (primarily) good-faith editors, albeit ones who are having trouble with the copyright policy, and they couldn't be more different from LTA pages. (I will also note that a decent proportion of editors think all LTA pages should be deleted, so that's not necessarily a system we should be seeking to replicate anyway.) We also courtesy-blank all CCI subpages at the conclusion of a case, which is something that's not done for either SPI or LTA. My point here is that the CCI workflow is fundamentally different from other parts of the project, and trying to standardize them all just for the sake of consistency is not in itself a good reason for this requested move. The privacy concerns mentioned by Moneytrees are another important factor – preventing even one instance of negative real life consequences would make the current naming convention worth it (and yes, there have been actual cases in the past related to these issues and I am very glad that we had this system in place). We have a naming system that works for the editors who work at CCI, so let's err on the side of protection of privacy and being considerate towards those who chose to register under their real names, and keep the status quo. DanCherek (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Would moving in the opposite direction (move all cases to dates) be more in line with CCI's philosophy? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations. DanCherek (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose What is the problem that this naming convention is causing, and which moving it will fix? Ovinus (talk) 19:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Question on instructions
The instructions, in After examining an article say this:
 * "The template may be used for articles where you were unable to 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)."

This does not seem to allow for the situation where it's perfectly clear that a violation occurred, but it has since been removed or adequately amended? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case, use the template with the explanation; that's how I read it.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  20:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tony. I also see that the instruction in Text says: "If the contributor has added creative content, either evaluate it carefully for copyright concerns or remove it." So you don't even have to evaluate it. You can just remove it, if it's "creative". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Martinevans123 @Tony Holkham Yeah, adding something like " removed/rewritten after being added" should be good. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Diffs
Spicy said, ".. the script used to create these pages excludes diffs below a certain size since it's unlikely that they contain substantial copyvio." What is that size and how is it determined? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

A total of 44 items have so far been marked with. What does this mean, as it doesn't appear in the instructions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)