Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Advice for admins

Comment
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)

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)

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)

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. &mdash; Kbh3rd talk 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)

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)

U== 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 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 &bull; 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC

THE

This was an UNAUTHORIZED ACCT BY HACKERS TO TRYING TO ROB ME AND THEY KNOW I HAVE NOTHING T9 GIVE ARE HOMELESS DRUG AADDICT AND THE LAST TI. I SAW HIM HE RAPED M😡😡😡😡😡😡😡 SO I DONT KNOW EHY HE OR WHAT TYPE OF DRUGS THEY ARE ON FOR THEM TO THINK ITS OKAY TO EVER CONTACT ME EVER AGAIN IN LIFE!!!!!!!!!!? SO PLEASE CLOSE WHATEVER THIS ACCT IS FOR

THANK YOU≈K

What happened to the logs?
Why has 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 &bull; 02:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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 Requesting_copyright_permission). 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 and list it per the Copyright problems. 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 &bull; 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

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: Hoping to help, but wanting to be careful... --Alvestrand 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * 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 &bull; 18:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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 - 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 &bull; 23:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

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 &bull; 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)

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 &bull; 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, 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 &bull; 05:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * When I referenced the instructions I actually meant Copyright_problems, 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)

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 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.


 * WP:CSD states that blatant infringements should be tagged for speedy deletion using db-imgcopyvio, and that non-blatant copyright infringements should go to Possibly unfree images, cutting out WP:CP entirely.
 * Possibly unfree images says that WP:CP should be used for images where "source is known and it cannot be used under a free license or fair use doctrine". No examples were given, so I tried to provide some.
 * WP:IFD says, "for copyright infringements, use Copyright problems", bypassing WP:PUI and WP:CSD.

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. - Krakatoa  Katie  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 &bull; 03:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted to the previous version, but kept the Images section. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've taken another run at it, and I hope I've addressed some of the concerns. I've reorganized and condensed and hopefully it's a better flow.
 * The three sentences vs. 4,500 words was indeed addressed under 'minor part of the article', but I removed the comparison anyway and rephrased the concept.
 * I've tried to consolidate and differentiate between investigation and action, and to urge admins to do a thorough investigation before deciding what to do. I think a flowchart may be helpful, so I might fiddle with OmniGraffle over the weekend.
 * On the subject of investigation, I'm not sure what you mean by 'the only way to figure it out is to read the whole article.' I certainly hope an admin who is considering deletion of a copyright problem would read the entire article and the external URL/source before he/she deletes the article in question, and I'm not sure why reading the entire article (or the instructions, if that's what you're saying) is a bad thing. Could you clarify your concern if I have not adequately addressed it?
 * Lastly, the rewrite was necessary in the first place because the old version, to which it was reverted, contradicted itself and was incorrect and outdated, as I described above. G12 was changed in 2006 to remove the 48-hour time limit on speedy deletion, but it was never removed from these instructions until I did it. I know my work is not perfect and it needs help and collaboration, but please don't revert it to something that's chock full of errors and circular reasoning. I was pretty sure that my first try at this was better than the one that was simply, you know, wrong. :-) -  Krakatoa  Katie  05:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I prefer the more complete version. I do want to note that there's likely to be a change to these soon, as a new speedy category seems to be gaining consensus here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision and GFDL requirements
I've encountered a situation recently where another admin seemed unclear on the rewriting done at the temporary talk page. I wonder if this document needs to more openly address the GFDL rights of contributors. A temporary "do-over" can't use text contributed by other editors; otherwise, when we delete those foundational edits, we've violated copyright ourselves. This, of course, because Wikipedia doesn't own copyright to material hosted here. Contributors do. They merely license its use and reuse for others under the terms of GFDL so long as authorship history is maintained. Deleting that history is a problem. :) I've done a minor tweak to this document to address that, but I begin to wonder if this fact needs more explanation, the already-complicated nature of this notwithstanding. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be allowable to reference the relevant authors and dates in the edit summary when such additions are made, though it might be substantial work to look through all the revisions for every change. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Kudos
Just want to give praise for the new shape of this page. Compared to what it was when I dabbled in copyright backlog handling several months ago, it's a huge improvement. I'm sure new people who join the backlog crew (once Moonriddengirl stops doing such a fantastic job of keeping the backlog down) will find this to be enormously helpful.

Excellent work! --Alvestrand (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)