Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Archive 2

Clarification of status of recently added GFDL content under dual licensing scheme?
I'm a bit confused by the impact of WP:CC-BY-SA on things currently added under a GFDL license. Example: Cyrk (Art) which is now at AfD - the source added a GFDL notice within the past couple of days and the copyvio notice therefore removed. What I don't get: - I thought that according to the Timeline at meta, the change was enacted yet? - Why is there a November 1st 2008 cut-off date for content released GFDL-only? - What should we do with current copyvio notices where the source is GFDL-only, assuming the change is indeed not enacted just right now?

Additionally, should we consider including a different template than the full copyvio for material added under GFDL only from third-party sites, both for the article but also a replacement of the standard nothanks?

Confused. MLauba (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I put the OTRS clearance on that and have raised that very question at Wikipedia talk:Transition to Creative Commons licensing. Unsurprisingly, I've gotten no answer. I think there's going to be wrinkles and delay in processing this, but so long as the bottom of every edit screen says, "Do not copy text from other websites without a GFDL-compatible license. It will be deleted", we will be in a strange position telling contributors that donations from GFDL-licensed sites are unacceptable. :) Our official copyright policy also has not been updated. As an OTRS member, when I receive permissions letters, I advise contributors that a co-license is necessary. I would myself not tag these articles with copyvio during this transition period, but would instead drop a note on their page saying, "Hi. Wikipedia is on the brink of a licensing transition which may go into full effect any day. As soon as it passes, we will have to begin removing material donated after November, 2008, from GFDL-licensed sites unless they are co-licensed under CC-BY-SA. Please consider co-licensing this source so that we can retain your donation." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "please note" section at the bottom says "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission", so it's a bit of a mess. – Quadell (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently all this is going to be implemented on June 15th. Oh, what fun we're going to have. :/ User:ViperSnake151 has created a template to use for those articles that are GFDL-only after November 2008: CCPermissionNeeded. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. That link will be smaller by the time you see it. :) I'm cleaning some of that up now, checking to see if co-licensing has subsequently been granted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles started as copyvios
Its been a few months since I've been active at Wikipedia, so I might well be out of date but I was wondering if its common practice now to keep an article that was a copyvio in all its revisions save the last? Used to be when there was a copy/paste and we had no permission, the article was deleted; if there were a couple of non-copyvio revisions at the end, those were restored sans tainted history. Someone mentioned to me that they felt I should write a stub with non copyvio text instead of speedying an under G12 and I've gone on to note that they do this frequently themselves when reviewing suspected copyvios. It just seemed a bit odd to me that we'd started leaving those bits hanging around, so I thought I'd check with the group. Thanks bunches! Shell  babelfish 09:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Interested in an answer here too because it's not only what I do quite often, I also rm articles which had been stubified by others when working the backup on WP:SCV from the list without further action. MLauba (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What I usually do is replace with a new version, deleting the old. (When I have time and enough familiarity with the subject.) Of course, have to be an admin to do that directly, but non-admins can do it, too, by using the copyvio and putting the new article in temp space. If the article has already been rewritten, I may delete the history from under it if no GFDL-infringing text has been retained. If GFDL-infringing text has been retained, and the copyvio is not extensive, I may put a cclean on the article's talk. I prefer not to have copyvios hanging in history if it can be avoided, but current guidelines and policies allow for it, and current practice certainly does. We didn't delete User:GrahamBould's thousands of articles, but stubbed them aggressively. But, note, I've actually been e-mailed a very bitter complaint about this practice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just an idea here, how feasible would it be to create a template + associated cat / queue to request a history delete (as opposed to a full G12)? That way we non-admin could ping you guys for these specific articles which we decided not to flag for G12 for whatever reason, without clogging up WP:CP further. MLauba (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's certainly acceptable practice to remove as much violating material as is practically possible, although we should recognize that it's not always practicable and that "perfect" should be the enemy of "good enough". Physchim62 (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that's in support of, opposition to, or tangential to Mlauba's question. :) I agree we have to yield to the practical.


 * Mlauba, it might be feasible, but we'd need to go through the full proposal process, I think, for essentially a subdivision of a CSD. An equally workable idea, I think, would be to just to specify at the CP listing that a clean version exists in temp. The downside of that: 7+1 days before an admin even reviews it. Hmm. Maybe if it's speediable, just G12 it and then write a clean? Or maybe the G12 template should just be expanded to allow a temp rewrite just as CP already does? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The easiest would be rewriting in place and then adding the articles to a new holding pen&mdash;similar than WP:SPLICE&mdash;for deletion of infringing versions. One could advertise the new holding pen on AN, and see if it stays clean. Policy discussions can take far too long, and adding a new CSD criteria would probably require an RfC. Still, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY :) – Sadalmelik ☎ 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing prevents us from suggesting an extension of CSD G6 (histmerge) though, let's call it histpurge or something :) I'm gonna float the idea at WT:CSD. MLauba (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Started a thread here. MLauba (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to be uncontroversial. Can you make templates? (Unless they're simple, I don't try. :)) The proof will be in the pudding, as they say, and whether or not admins encountering the template honor it. Of course, the various copyright policies & procedure pages will need to mention it. Should we be bold, make a template & include it or go through the proposal process further? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have thought about this issue quite a bit over several months. Really "current guidelines and policies allow for it, and current practice certainly does" is not good enough: since we are talking about something which is illegal, policy must not allow for it. If copyright infringing material is posted here the owner of the copyright should be able to expect that the material be removed completely as soon as the infringement is known: it is better than nothing, but good not enough, that after a while the material is put somewhere where it takes an extra couple of clicks to find it. We really need to have a procedure for this which is clear and straightforward. I think at least part of the problem is a growing tendency among many Wikipedia editors to be reluctant to delete anything: to regard it as a last resort. In the past, as Shell pointed out in the original post on this thread, there was a greater readiness to delete and start again, which I think was more helpful. However, since it is not possible to make all the editors adopt a different attitude, there has to be another solution. As to what that solution is, unfortunately I have nothing to add to what has already been suggested, but I thought it worthwhile expressing the opinion that some change is essential, not optional. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is, of course, that unless there is an office declaration, the only way to change policy is to gain consensus. I find it pretty difficult rounding up enough Wikipedians to even discuss copyright concerns (my recent proposal at Copyright violations, publicized all over the place, had only a handful of participants). I don't think people are indifferent; I think they view it as outside their area of expertise. Policy talk, of course, requires no intricate knowledge of copyright law. :) I think we would need quite a few participants to alter policy to indicate that all copyvios should be removed; such a change passed by only a few contributors would almost certainly be overturned. I've been working heavily in copyright issues on Wikipedia for almost a year now, and I see an interesting dichotomy in our users (including some who are established). Some clearly take copyright very seriously and advocate the rooting out and removal of infringement. Others have a far more cavalier attitude that if nobody complains, there's no problem. I believe this dichotomy may go pretty far up the Wikipedia ladder. Given that Wikipedia is already more proactive in addressing infringement than required by the DMCA, would we be able to muster community support for going further? I don't know. I myself would participate in but not launch such a battle, since I try to pick my battles. We need a bold, energetic, charismatic spokesperson. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For the time being, Mlauba (and others), I'd be more than happy to set aside a page in my userspace that folks can toss article names on if they've fixed an article and just want the early revisions deleted for copyvio reasons. Shouldn't be much more difficult than sticking on a template and it might be a good test to see how well the idea would work. Shell  babelfish
 * I do not grok the Wiki software. :/ I don't know why I didn't get an edit conflict with you here, but I didn't even notice you'd responded. Does this mean (re: the above) that you'd prefer a trial run to devising a template? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrmp - the silly software does try to keep us out of trouble with edit conflicts, but it is darn inconvenient when trying to have a discussion. Anyways, like you said, its hard to get a sufficient number of people interested in copyright problems and even if you can get them interested, its not something you can do blindly.  I was actually referring just to the cases Mlauba mentioned when someone stubs an article with all copyvio revisions and thinking if they could drop a note, I could do a history clean up since I'm already familiar with the idea. I agree that a larger discussion needs to be had about how to handle copyvio revisions, but I do worry that it would be difficult to get any substantial agreement.  I recall there used to be instructions for admins on how to handle copyright violations - maybe something similar for other contributors would be helpful?  That might at least give us a starting point for the discussion. Shell   babelfish 11:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I created a template following Happy-Melon's suggestion at User:MLauba/db-histpurge.


 * Regarding Shell's proposal, how about we create another subpage of the wikiproject here instead? Heck, if the community isn't comfortable with the proposed extension of CSD G6, perhaps the simplest approach would be to just make a category tied to the template and transclude it on the project's subpage, so that more than one admin can share the workload?


 * @JamesBWatson, after thinking the whole matter through, I agree with the notion of taking the more radical approach. However, I see G12 in certain cases as just too broad. There is a solid proportion of copyvios identified by CSB which were validly stubified relatively soon afterwards and then expanded from there cleanly. The displayed article isn't in violation, but if we just straight off G12 and then re-paste the text, we're now pretty much walking over the legit contrib history of editors who added valuable contributions. Which I also feel is less than ideal, hence the whole histpurge idea. MLauba (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea - I'd expect folks here to be more interested in doing it right than if it was a subpage of CSD. About that second bit - if someone does come along and stubbify the article/go from there, I think most admin's won't simply G12 - in that case its easy to delete and then restore the good stub and any later revisions. Shell  babelfish 11:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I trust all admins active here won't, I'm not as confident in every other CSD deleter out here...


 * That being said, as an alternative to G6 extension, here's a variant of the template for this project's subpage: User:MLauba/copyvio-histpurge. Comments, feedback and improvement welcome. MLauba (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY → CC-BY-SA, compatibility
Hi. In a couple of days, Wikipedia will be completing that transition, presumably, by which we'll co-license material under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. (Except, according to meta, when material is donated from other sources under CC-BY-SA only, when it will be singly licensed, which should throw the world of Wikipedia mirrors off completely, since they then must verify that articles are both or, I guess, blanketly restrict their licensing notice to CC-BY-SA. But I digress.) My first foray into grasping new licensing compatibilities: can we accept material that is CC-BY, rather than CC-BY-SA? I would presume that we can. Based on the explanation I've been given for why CC-BY-SA is incompatible with GFDL, I would imagine that we could not convert CC-BY-SA → CC-BY, since CC-BY is a slightly more liberal license, not requiring that derivative works be kept under CC-BY license but only that credit be given. Can we convert CC-BY to CC-BY-SA? It seems logical that we could, since so long as we give credit to the original, there is nothing to prevent our imposing new restrictions on derivatives of the Wikipedia version, so long as we do not attempt to impose new restrictions on the external source. OTOH, "logic" doesn't always seem connected to "licensing", and I may be missing some nuance that would make that a no. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the relevant part of the CC licensing FAQ. The question is, at what stage does CC-BY content posted on Wikipedia become a derivative work so that the above applies without doubt? MLauba (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the linked FAQ page indicates that it should be possible to convert CC-BY to CC-BY-SA for derivative works, my question is, though, whether simply reposting & wikifying already passes off as a derivative works or not. I'm not sure whether mere reproduction of licensed work is eligible for relicensing. MLauba (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks. The link demonstrates that we can accept CC-BY licensing. I would imagine the line of "derivative work" is as slippery as it is with most copyright alterations—more than a few words, less than a complete overhaul. As to whether or not we can haul it to Wikipedia if it's CC-BY and slap a CC-BY-SA label on it, I am so leaving that one alone, as it falls squarely into my SEP Field. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This might be a good one to toss over to Mike Godwin? MLauba (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * grok and an SEP all in one day - I'm going to like working at this project :D (Disclaimer: I have a leather-bound gilt-edge copy of the four book trilogy on my desk) Shell  babelfish 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You, madam, have fine taste in literature. :) MLauba, before tapping Mike, I'd be inclined to toss it up at that meta talk page. I tend not to tap Mike except when I have to, so as not to wear out my welcome. Occasionally, I'm forced to write to ask him about a complex or unclear issue at WP:CP, and I'm hoping to delay the instinctive "Her again?!" shudder as long as possible. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Media copyright questions might not be a bad place to hit up people for thoughts either but sooner or later, we need a better FAQ on meta about this change. Shell  babelfish 12:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any need to disturb the great and good on this one. When we host CC-BY works on Wikipedia, we cannot fully enforce the GFDL with respect to that work, that's always been the case. It will still be the same when we switch to a general CC-BY-SA double licensing. Take the case of the word "the": that is in the public domain, but it's widely used on Wikipedia… are we saying that we have somehow been breaching the GFDL by using public domain words? ;) Wikipedia licensing is a glorious mess, most of which has never been tested in court, but somehow we manage anyway, and will continue to do! Physchim62 (talk) 13:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The remark about the word "the" is misleading, because there is no problem with taking more liberally-licensed content and putting in a less liberally-licensed work, and public domain is more liberal than anything else. This is the principle expressed above as "there is nothing to prevent our imposing new restrictions on derivatives". in fact, if you check the relevant part of the CC licensing FAQ, you will see that it explicitly indicates that public domain material can always be used. I know that that is not referring to the GFDL, but the same applies to any license. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to mislead! We're saying exactly the same thing. If an author wishes to enforce a restriction on derivative works under the CC system, they must do it explicitly. CC-BY introduces the restriction of attribution (something which cannot be avoided, even by the author, in many jurisdictions). CC-BY-SA introduces the additional restriction of "share-alike". If we include a CC-BY work in a a CC-BY-SA document, the author of the latter document cannot enforce the share-alike clauses on those third-party works included: they do not have the copyright to do so, and you cannot reclaim something which you've never possessed. I think people are getting far too worried about copyfraud, when we have a very sophisticated system for informing reusers of the copyright status of our media files. Physchim62 (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Far-ranging question, Billboard Hot 100 charts
See here. At question: the creativity involved in compiling these charts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed histpurge case study: Jacky Jasper
Here's a slightly complex example: Jacky Jasper started as copyvio and was then only slightly paraphrased, then expanded a bit. Following the CSB report, I threw out most of the content. Now granted, this is the kind of stuff I'd normally seriously consider sending to G12 and be done with it, but I'm curious to test the boundaries of history purging here. So the question is, how far can history purging go? In this case, I'm actually not responsible of any addition of content, all has been done layered upon the initial copyvio, and should probably be credited to the original editor in some fashion.

Is this something salvageable in some manner or is this the typical case where it's best just to G12 and start over?

What do you think? MLauba (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As test cases go, this one would be fairly easy, since you can credit the contributor in one edit summary, since one person is responsible for all the creative content you propose to retain. I have created clean articles in just that fashion, putting a note in the edit summary that says, "Content contributed by User:ISaidThis on date." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, good, that means the histpurge template should probably also contain a parameter to list contributors to credit. We might get this done right pretty fast actually :D MLauba (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect what we ought to do is put the burden of crediting the contributors on the tagger, with a parameter listing from which permanent id back the history purge should go and a reminder to admins to ensure that proper attribution has been provided? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. The draft template I made at User:MLauba/copyvio-histpurge already has a parameter to specify the diff for cut-off, I'll add the contrib list parameter.
 * Actually, with contributor history, we're on different pages. :) I'm wondering why the administrator should have to list the contributors, rather than the user who rewrites content? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of an article started as copyvio, where other editors have expanded upon, and the expansions have been retained by the copyvio cleaner. Too much of a good thing? Anyway, the template is fixed, have a look and tell me what you think MLauba (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the issue is that the attribution should be in the edit history, the very first clean (and therefore oldest remaining) version; this would be made by the cleaner (who was probably also the tagger) in their edit summary. I don't see how having a template parameter would accomplish this task, since we can't change edit summaries. Oh, and good idea for the whole process, by the way! – Toon (talk)  22:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I meant. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

<- (undent) Ooh. I finally got it. Need sleep. MLauba (talk) 22:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

History Purges: Now live
Since there was no further objections on the topic, I went through and added a page here, the template, and a corresponding category to the mix, which means we can now start toying around with the thing. MLauba (talk) 09:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Did the first one, so far it looks like the template has all the right information but we'll see after playing with it for a bit. Thanks for all the work on this! Shell   babelfish 10:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoot! Growth! Kudos. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added the new template to WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Resources. Once it's been well road-tested, I'll incorporate it in the "how-to". :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Helderberg Internet Exchange
This one was a CSB report I investigated, the author asserted ownership on the article's talk page so I placed the copyvio template. The author has however removed the template without engaging in any further communications as far as I can tell. The entry is listed at WP:CP for June 11th. Would appreciate someone senior to keep an eye on this matter, and advice on how to handle such situations better. MLauba (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I consider myself "senior" (heh), but I do have access to some extra tools; I've protected and watchlisted it, but I can't get onto the website for some reason... either http://www.hbix.net or http://hbix.net, so I can't really investigate much further. All I can suggest in these situations is that you restore the tag and remind the user that until we verify permission, we can't host the material but they are welcome to create a new article on the temporary subpage. It's usually possible to get a friendly neighborhood admin to take an early look at the article too. It's useful if the steps for verification are provided on their tal page too, the nothanks-web template is quite good with this. – Toon (talk)  15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot and SCV reports
For some reason, CSB isn't listing reports at Suspected copyright violations, but is still tagging articles and warning contributors; articles which would be listed at SCV (and therefore need looking at) can be found in Special:Contributions/CorenSearchBot. I've started at the ones after it stopped reporting, if anyone fancies looking at the most recent ones. Oh, and I've already left Coren a note about it. – Toon (talk)  16:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've done all those which weren't reported to this point, which is up to 11:12, 16 June 2009, Dagupan City, Pangasinan. Until it gets fixed, it'll need to be checked every now and then. – Toon (talk)  17:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bots, sometimes they just don't come through. Oh, but they're lovely when they do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Coren just posted an update on his talk page, he stopped the bot due to API issues until further notice. MLauba (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Linkvio, ELNO question
A question has been raised at WP:CP about the inclusion of a specific link on Differintegral. Pending clarification of the issue, I have removed it. (See ) and opened a discussion at the talk page. Input on the issue would be appreciated, since currently there is dispute among several editors to the article as to whether the link is in violation of copyright. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't able to see what was at the link provided - what format is that in? Shell  babelfish 21:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I didn't give very much             information on it. :) The CP listing said, "Strange case: one editor is insistently re-inserting a link to a scanned source hosted by an obscure Russian site." The original contributor said, "as I know links to Google Books are allowed where books are also scanned and also not in PD. This is the same case: domain belongs to a book search system poiskknig.ru, similar to google books" --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahha - gots it. The djvu file format kinda threw me for a bit; I'll comment over on the talk to keep things together. Shell   babelfish 21:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Updating WP:C for licensing transition
I think I have brought it up to date. I have incorporated quite a bit of text directly from Terms of Use (all noted in edit summary, for attribution). Please review and help fix any problems at that talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Licensing update well underway. I have viewed everything I can think of, including "about" and disclaimers" and various deletion policies, and the only things that I know of that still need updating are Category:Wikipedia pages affected by the licensing transition. I'll take care of the Copyright problems/Advice for admins. The essay Merge and delete could use updating. These three sort of run together: Standard GFDL violation letter, Mirrors and forks and GFDL Compliance. I'm a bit loathe to tackle those, since there will either be page movings or new pages, since GFDL Compliance is not going to be the main issue anymore (but still can be, since reusers can choose which license to use). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Licensing transition, nutshell
After having updated a billion and a half policies, templates & guidelines, I think I have a grasp on the new licensing terms, at least as explained at Terms of Use. Here are the essential differences:
 * In the past, all text on Wikipedia was licensed under GFDL. Text could only be imported into Wikipedia if it was GFDL-compatible, and text could only be reused if the GFDL license was maintained and credit supplied.
 * Now, all text on Wikipedia is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Most text on Wikipedia is also licensed under GFDL. The exception is text that is imported under CC-BY-SA-compatible licenses only. Note that copyright holders cannot import their own text under CC-BY-SA-compatible licenses only, unless they have co-authored the material with somebody else. Anyone who places their own, solely created content directly on Wikipedia, whether they have published it previously elsewhere or not, must co-license it. GFDL-only imports are no longer acceptable from any source. Material that is imported under CC-BY-SA-compatible only licenses must be marked on the article's face or the article's talk page. Reusers may freely reuse text under CC-BY-SA and in most cases can reuse text under GFDL, unless the article's face or talk indicate otherwise. All text placed before June 15, 2009 may be reused under GFDL. Both licenses allow reuse & modification, but require attribution and continuation of license.

Anybody see any errors in that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah! Your link to meta doesn't work! :P Physchim62 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got another question as well, but I'd like to check the source you're working from before wasting your time on it ;) Physchim62 (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Should be Terms of use or Terms of Use. Dragons flight (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) I'll just note in passing that the "did you mean?" at this search is hilarious. – Quadell (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just as well that page doesn't exist, it would be a load of bollocks! Physchim62 (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, what Dragons flight said. But, hmm, I've got other links to fix! (@ Quadell: startled laughter) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"Material that is imported under CC-BY-SA-compatible only licenses must be marked on the article's face or the article's talk page." I don't see where this requirement comes from, at least not for this project. The only chunks of third-party copyrighted text that we should be including are those which would fall under the Berne Convention quotation exemption. There is no problem in reusing these under the GFDL. The issue might be more serious for other projects, such as Wikisource or Wikibooks, where it would make sense to note copyright status on the article face. If this really is a requirement, then a note on the article talk page wouldn't cut it: however it would mean that we also have hundreds of thousands of articles which infringe the conditions through their images… Physchim62 (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its application to us is here: "Information: These Terms of Use apply to any Wikimedia Foundation project which explicitly refers to them in the site footer and on the edit screen." It's in both. :) I do see, though, that I missed another possible location for placement of that note: "In order to determine whether a page is available under the GFDL, review the page footer, page history, and discussion page for attribution of single-licensed content that is not GFDL-compatible" It's properly listed at WP:C, since I pasted it (with cc-by-sa required attribution!) But this in reference to text only. As WP:C notes, reuse of "non-text media" is a different matter. We include third-party copyrighted text quite often; that's quite a bit of what we do at the permission queue of the OTRS, is accept permission for such. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, found it now! What a typical Foundation fudge! If there are a couple of simple solutions and one complicated and impractical solution, our glorious Foundation will always choose the complicated and impractical solution… They didn't even get the syntax right in that sentence ("attribution" is misused when they mean "evidence" or "records"). Still, I don't see that we have any choice in the matter, as the chances of getting Wikipedia to agree to a copyright policy which is more restrictive than the Foundation Terms of Use are about the same as my chances of being elected Pope. Nevertheless, in six months time there will be no content (except that from before 15 June) that can be safely and practically used under the GFDL: we won't officially admit it, but that doesn't stop it from being true. Physchim62 (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

OTRS
For anyone familiar with image copyright policies who is prepared to deal with public enquiries and permissions emails, I would encourage you to volunteer for OTRS. There's over 100 English-language permission emails at last count (and plenty more in German, French, Portuguese, Polish, etc.) so it's got backlogged lately. Please see OTRS/volunteering for more details. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I can't help with the German, French, Portugese, or Polish, but I'll try to put more time into OTRS. I've been caught up lately in licensing updates and cleanup. (I'm actually slightly backlogged at CP, but determined to catch it up today!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd help with German and French but I'm no admin, so this is just a support vote :) MLauba (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, you've won me. I applied at OTRS/volunteering. – Quadell (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoot! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Related: The Wikimedia Foundation is currently looking for a volunteer interested in evaluating and analyzing how the response system ("OTRS") has been working for the English Wikipedia. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Volunteering:Email_response_statistician – Quadell (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick look requested
While working down WP:SCV, I stumbled upon. His contrib history looks a bit worrying to me, would appreciate a second opinion here. MLauba (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Warnings going back to 2007. Duplication as recently as today. Worrying to me, too. Looking deeper. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the good news is that there's not enough in contrib history to require a full investigation. I can check and clear this one manually pretty swiftly. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * W00t! ;) Physchim62 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No kidding. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Good catch MLauba :) Shell  babelfish 16:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Expanding Nothanks template to highlight spam or notability issues?
Following a discussion with Moonriddengirl, we've been pondering about improving communication with users copying their own intellectual property onto wikipedia, who then jump through the permissions hoops, only to find their article deleted under WP:CSD or WP:CSD the moment the copyvio template is removed. As a first step, I've started tweaking the nothanks template to accept two more switches:


 * |spam = yes
 * |notability = yes

The tweaked template is under construction at User:MLauba/Nothanks2 and can be seen in action at User:MLauba/Sandbox2. Your input would be appreciated, and if someone knows of a simpler way to manage the nested ifexpr statements, hack away (but explain it to me please, I'm a template noob). Thanks. MLauba (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that's a great start, and it's a genius idea, in my opinion. I have no clue how to simplify the nesting, tho. :) I would suggest that instead of "It does currently not meet our inclusion criteria for lack of independent third-party reliable sources" we might want to go with "It does not currently seem to meet our inclusion criteria and lacks independent third-party reliable sources."


 * Then, since it may not have both of these issues, how about altering the bottom text to read, "Such concerns may lead to the deletion of the article under Wikipedia's speedy deletion criteria even if the copyright issues are resolved" (which is the more usual language than "on sight" and works whether one or both are toggled.) I wouldn't advise them to userfy the article, since copyvio text can't be placed in userspace, either. Hmm. Maybe instead of suggesting userfication, we should instead point to something like, "Please read Starting an article for guidance on how to address such concerns." That covers notability, verifiability, neutrality and copyvio. Alternatively, we could link WP:YFA, but they aren't all going to be "first articles." And it does link to YFA. What do you think? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Babysitter wanted, WP:CP, Tues-Friday
I'm seeking a babysitter for WP:CP from Tuesday through Friday. Basically, this means I'm hoping somebody or somebodies (admins or otherwise) will police the listings for the 15th through the 18th as each of these move to "Older than 7 days." I'm going to be out of town, and it would be great to find that it isn't entirely backlogged. :D The copyvio template is technically not supposed to be removed by non-admins, but a good many of the articles listed there don't have the template on them; they are marked with copypaste. Non-admins can do the same kind of work there that is done at SCV—rewriting, removing, stubbing, leaving cclean, finding out that there really isn't a copyright violation or, if there is and the contributor was not notified, tagging it for speedy or copyvio. I've seen the copyvio template removed by uninvolved non-admin editors where no infringement exists; with a note explaining why at the talk page, I personally think this is a good use of WP:IAR. Admins, of course, can do as much or as little of the adminny and non-adminny stuff that they like. Everyone here is probably already aware that it's customary these days to leave a note explaining how it resolved unless the article was deleted. The redlink is its own note. A lot of what I do there is secretarial, just noting how the matter was handled before I ever arrived. Anybody up for some kidsitting? The job pays very poorly (I am willing to convey to you full interest in my Wikipedia salary for those days...yes, all of $0 will be yours), but I'd be grateful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to help out there when I've got time, I think a group effort would work best (since the Dollar to Sterling exchange rate is pretty awful at the moment I won't quit my day job). – Toon (talk)  15:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll help out. Given the performance of the euro recently, I'll probably end up having to pay to do this :( Give me a nudge on my talk page if you don't see me around. BTW, I am certainly willing to remove copyvio tags from non-copyvio pages, despite not being an admin: but then I'm just a cantankerous old sod with four years' WP experience in such matters, not like these bootcamp-trained new admin thingies! Physchim62 (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. :) Frankly, the only time I've ever really point out the "Hey! Don't edit!" is when people remove the tag while leaving the infringement still published (unless for some reason they seem to have done so clearly in good faith). That happens about once a week, I think. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody look into?
I'm getting ready for departure, so I'm going to have limited time online tomorrow, but I've just listed Grand Lodge of Manitoba. Not sure how extensive this is, but there's definitely duplication with no sign of permission. Stumbled onto this when the contributor had two articles listed on June 14th. I see that he was notified of copyright infringement in December 2006; that article was speedily deleted. He wrote a new one which was again deleted for copyright violation with proper notice on June 9 2007 (See ). Then on June 17, 2007, he created this. He may well be affiliated with the source, but it is marked "Web site © 1998-2009 Manitoba Historical Society. All rights reserved." And there's no sign of permission, though he had been advised how to permit just days before. I'm going to be out of town for any conversation that may follow. It's listed at Copyright problems/2009 June 21. Current conversation is at User talk:Zef. I have not had the opportunity to look deeply into other articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure would be nice to have WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Allstarecho cleaned up.. *whistles* - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 23:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All right. I'll see if I can help clear it out before I log off today. :) As you can see, there's never really a point where this stuff is done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Muchos gracias. I just don't want you being gone and someone else coming along that's not familiar with the history adding more drama to it. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 00:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. Thank you very much for helping. As I said at ANI, you are the first and so far only. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a Lazy Magnolia Southern Pecan please. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 01:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of a Diet Coke person myself. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How many non-free images are too many?
Hi. There's a question at Talk:Johnny Eck regarding the usage of non-free images of deceased individuals and how many are necessary to stand as the "Primary means of identifying a notable person." Additional feedback would be most welcome. :) Images are not my main focus, but I have an uneasy feeling that 5 is a few too many, even if the subject is deceased. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An article is generally limited to 1 non-free image, with a FUR in place of course, and anymore is considered decorative unless an additional image is specific to a notable and sizeable section of an article and being used to identify that section. That's how it's been explained to me in the past. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 14:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for supplying feedback. Unless it's clear and obvious, I hardly ever get involved in the image questions. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Review of course of action on Society for Mathematical Biology
I stubified the above following a report on WP:SCV and requested a history purge. The article creator, after claiming the article was not in infringement, now asserts that he has permission from the society and that the history should not be purged at all. See Talk:Society for Mathematical Biology and User talk:Bci2 for the various interactions around the topic. I would appreciate a more experienced editor taking over at this stage and reviewing the matter. Thanks. MLauba (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have left him or her a message about how to verify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the escalation of the situation, I have opened a mediation request on the matter. MLauba (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Text copied from a book with a citation, but no attribution or quotation
I am unable to get a straight answer about whether plagiarized text copied from a book into an article can also qualify as a copyright violation. I maintain that in this particular incident, it does, but I have been unable to find anyone who will directly address my question.. Here is the original text from the book complete with a link:

"Throughout the Cold War and afterward, few nations placed more emphasis in their foreign policy on the promotion of human rights, market freedom, and political democracy. Since the 1970s, U.S. legislation has tied foreign aid to progress in human rights; the State Department annually assesses the human rights records of governments around the world. Outside government, the United States can boast some of the most effective and influential human rights organizations in the world."

Now, here is the material that was added to the article:

"Throughout the Cold War and since that time, few nations placed more emphasis in their foreign policy on the promotion of human rights, including tying foreign aid to human rights progress and annually assessing the human rights records of government around the world."

At least 28 of the 43 words in the passage above were copied and pasted from exact phrases in Ignatieff's book. For example, the exact phrases "Throughout the Cold War", "few nations placed more emphasis in their foreign policy on the promotion of human rights" and "the human rights records of government around the world" are copied from Ignatieff's book verbatim without using quotes and without attributing the material to Ignatieff in the paragraph. Since more than half of the paragraph from the book was copied wholesale into the article without quotations, I maintain that this version is a copyright violation. Could someone address this example directly and give me an answer? Is it a copyright violation or not? Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article this comes from is Human rights in the United States, and has been discussed extensively on the talk page. The quote is attributed to the source by way of citation, and the claim that is "unattributed" is incorrect.  It is my position that this not a copyright violation by any standard, nor is is it plaigarism as originally claimed.  Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As it was explained to you there, per Turabian 2007 and other style guides, simply having a source citation does not prevent plagiarism. For purposes of disclosure, Yachtsman1 and another editor have been caught plagiarizing material and they refuse to acknowledge it.  The above use of 28 of 43 words, taken directly from a book is indeed plagiarism, and it doesn't matter if a reference appears at the end of it.  This question, however, has nothing to do wtih plagiarism, but with copyright violation, so please do not continue to interfere here.  Your contribution history will eventually be combed by experts on this topic for copyright cleanup. Viriditas (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to add that this accusation by editor Viriditas is also part of a series of Disruptive edits in this article leading to his/her being blocked for 48 hours a few days ago for Edit warring, including these false charges of NPOV and "plagarism.  The quote was re-paraphrased repeatedly more, yet he/she continued to use the false charge of "plagarism" to delete it.  Here is the now current quote:
 * Original quote : Throughout the Cold War and afterward, few nations placed more emphasis in their foreign policy on the promotion of human rights, market freedom, and political democracy. Since the 1970s, U.S. legislation has tied foreign aid to progress in human rights; the State Department annually assesses the human rights records of governments around the world.  Outside government, the United States can boast some of the most effective and influential human rights organizations in the world.
 * Current quite clearly paraphrased quote Viriditas continues to attempt to delete : "During and after the Cold War, the United States placed greater emphasis on human rights as part of its foreign policy than many other nations, awarding foreign aid in order to facilitate human rights progress, and annually assessing the human rights records of other national governments."


 * Perhaps even more troubling is that today this editor has now moved onto a completely different article I edited long ago(Jonestown), and after being confronted by another editor with the possibility that he/she was carrying an WP:Edit War with me to that article, overtly admitting that he/she had decided to edit that article, because "yes, my attention was drawn to this article due to the actions of another user who has been active here".Mosedschurte (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above paraphrase only appeared much later, after I had removed the copyright violation several times, and it was not made voluntarily. Mosedchurte originally made this edit consisting of 43 words, which copied 28 of them exactly from this book.  For the record, Mosedschurte and Yachtsman1 have both been plagiarizing material on Wikipedia, particularly in Human rights in the United States.  They continue to defend this practice and will not stop doing it.  There are therefore, significant concerns about their contribution history and I have been looking to see if other articles or media have the same issues.  There may be enough evidence to open up two new cases and add them to WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup/Contributor_surveys. Viriditas (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Viriditas's definition of "plaigarism" is not the one utilized by Wikipedia. Plagarism is defined as follows: "Plagiarism is the incorporation of someone else's work without providing adequate credit". See Plagiarism.  Given the fact that the alleged "plaigarized" materials are attributed to sources via citation, this latest accusation lacks any merit whatsoever, but is yet another in a long list of accusations utilized by this editor in her ongoing content dispute in the article in question, which is what this thread is really all about if anyone was actually wondering.  Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My definition of plagiarism is no different from the one used by Wikipedia, and as you have been repeated reminded, citing sources does not prevent plagiarism. The fact that you and Mosedchurte are wikilawyering over the definition of plagiarism is extremely troubling.  You have both been copying and pasting exact passages from books into Wikipedia articles without quotations or inline author attribution.  This is both plagiarism and copyright violation. You cannot continue to do this. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that this editor attempted to delete nearly every single re-paraphrasing (it was not "plagarism" in the first place) here, here, here, here and here, several of which with the similarly false charge of "plagarism", and then other reasons thereafter.
 * Also note that this is part of a continuing campaignto make false charges to justify deleting or tagging material. For example, in another edit, when this editor disagreed with one word in the quote, instead of changing it, he/she addeded a tag.  When asked why heshe didn't just change the one objectionable word, he/she reponded in a moment of candor that ""The joke is that you are actually asking me to fix your errors".
 * Please also note that as part of a new WP:Wikihounding campaign, this editor has now made edits and comments at the Jonestown article (referenced above) with accusations of a different matter, that inadequate discussion of the WP:Fringe Jonestown conspiracy theory, a CIA conspiracy theory propounded by cult leader Jim Jones himself, was NPOV, adding such a tag to the entire article on that basis.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Attempts to distract from blatant plagiarism and copyright violation noted. Your edits have been questioned by multiple editors, and this requires going through your contributions and fixing continuing violations.  This project has been notified.  Please let them do their job. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Content dispute duly noted. I am quite certain this project will understand the meaning of "copyright" and "fair use" as well as I do.  I would suggest you look them up before commenting further.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A question about plagiarism and copyright has nothing to do with a content dispute, nor was there ever a content dispute about this material at any time in the past. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(od) Viriditas also made this same false plagarism charge at WP:Content_noticeboard and was told "If it's paraphrased sufficiently, it isn't plagiarism. It is paraphrased sufficiently."Mosedschurte (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, no. The material that was paraphrased sufficiently was added several days after the example I gave on this project page.  You know that, as you are the original author of the plagiarized material, so you are being deliberately dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This conversation is long. I have been traveling and am quite tired, so please excuse my not reading beyond what is on this page. I hope to be able to offer some input on the generalities without dipping heavily into specifics. In answer to the first question, "whether plagiarized text copied from a book into an article can also qualify as a copyright violation"--yes. Plagiarized text can also be a copyright violation. The two questions are different: copyright is a strictly legal consideration. The second question, "Is it a copyright violation or not?" is not really answerable outside of a US court. Many factors may be taken into account there, including whether the text copied is substantial (in size or in central importance or both). However—and what really matters here—it is against Wikipedia's policies to incorporate text verbatim from unfree sources without clearly indicating what text is copied (not only who wrote it). This is covered in the policies of WP:C and WP:NFCC. We may not closely paraphrase text on Wikipedia with a reliance on fair use, but must plainly mark non-free materials in accordance with WP:NFC. I would imagine that this particular instance could be addressed relatively simply given the size of the passage by rewriting it or incorporating limited quotations as per that guideline (please note that I am not comparing the first paraphrase with latter; it may well have already been satisfactorily revised. I'm still addressing generalities). If other non-free text has been too closely paraphrased, it will need to be addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! My original question to this project can be found here.  Could you address it specifically (just as an example) and walk me through the correct proceedure for dealing with it according to the project guidelines?  Also, would you consider updating the new plagiarism guideline so that it offers similar examples and walks users through the process?  Something like, "help, I think I found plagiarism, what do I do?"  As you can see from the above exchange, there is still confusion about plagiarism and copyright cleanup.  In any case, how would you adress my example in the diff? Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Generalities & specifics
Thank you. The travel fog is beginning to clear. Hope I won't be incomprehensible here. :)

I agree with you that this passage is a problem under Wikipedia's policies as it takes creative elements (both language and structure) from a non-free source in a manner inconsistent with the non-free content policy & guideline. From a legal standpoint, close paraphrase of a single passage is unlikely to clear the de minimis threshold, whether or not the material is defensible as fair use. But Wikipedia's own policies do require that non-free content be plainly marked. (There are several good reasons for this, including that our copyright policy indicates that all of our text is licensed under CC-BY-SA and GFDL unless otherwise indicated. If we don't mark non-free content, we violate that.)

What I would first do on encountering such a passage is identify where it entered the article and spot-check other text added by the same contributor in case there is a general misunderstanding of how Wikipedia handles non-free material. If I found nothing else, I would rewrite that passage to address the problem, probably by turning it into a quotation to attribute the point of view, since a statement such as "few nations placed more" is not hard fact. (Step 2 at the "how-to" for this project is "If the problem can be easily addressed, address it.") If there were extensive issues in the article with other text, I would probably blank it with the copyvio to allow regular contributors to address, since the subject seems like a contentious one.

As far as plagiarism is concerned, the passage in question that currently covers this matter at Plagiarism is here: "If an external work is under a standard copyright notice, then copying text from such a work, with little or no alteration to that work, into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation, unless it is clearly indicated in the text by quotation marks or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations)." That guideline also notes that "Limited amounts of text can be copied from from such works providing they satisfy the Wikipedia copyright policy and are clearly indicated in the article with the use of quotation marks or some other acceptable method (such as block quotations)" and "If you find duplicated text or media, consider first whether the primary problem is plagiarism or copyright infringement. If the source is not public domain or licensed compatibly with Wikipedia, or if you suspect that it is not, you should address it under the copyright policies." Copyright concerns trump plagiarism, and I would accordingly either bypass concerns of plagiarism altogether in addressing such a situation or brush on it very lightly. The most important thing (to me, at least) is to make sure non-free material is properly handled.

I would point a contributor who closely paraphrases to the copyright FAQ and, if necessary, to Close paraphrasing, which does contain an example or two, though it could use expansion and probably clarification relative to copyright policy. (And maybe I'll try to get around to that, since I've been saying that for a while. :)) I'm not sure it's a good idea to add examples to the plagiarism guideline itself for several reasons, including that the question of close paraphrasing is not solely a plagiarism issue and I am very concerned that Wikipedia should not divert copyright matters to that guideline. Wikipedia could conceivably decide that close paraphrasing free sources is not a plagiarism concern for our project at all, even if other disciplines might believe that it is. Wikipedia can't decide that close paraphrasing non-free sources is not copyright, because the US courts have said it is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your time and dedication. I need to get some rest, but when I return, I may have some more questions for you.  Again, thank you. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A second PoV
Now, way up at the top of this discussion, there's a question about the two ways of expressing a single idea. I can't answer that question, because I'm not a U.S. federal judge. The criterion is subjective and it certainly doesn't rely on a counting of words. Editors who like case citations might like to look at Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), which defeats many SOAPBOX fair use claims that Wikipedia must publish certain material.

Most case matter in "plagiarism" cases has concerned musical compositions: Harper & Row v. Nation shows that we must be careful (in copyright terms) about "plagiarism" in text, but doesn't give any clear guidelines beyond the vague concept of an "essential element". Wikipedia tends to be conservative on such questions (as befits an encyclopedia, even an innovative one) so, if there's doubt, we are likely to shout COPYVIO!

Personally, I think there's rarely any need for strict paraphrasing, as the Wikipedia structure allows editors to add context to their hearts' content. Paraphrasing in itself s not a solution to copyright infringement. If I see a section which has been obviously copied-and-pasted from a non-cited copyright source, I remove it. If I see a section which has been obviously copied-and-pasted from a non-cited copyright source, and then marginally altered, I remove it as well. If I find a sentence which appears in another work, but in a different context, I leave it. The overriding concern is the utility of the text within the encyclopedia (as I judge it, or after discussion if necessary).

Let's consider two examples: which of these passages is better?

For readers who aren't aware, Martin Luther King's I Have A Dream speech is protected under U.S. copyright until the end of 2058: I'm probably breaching WP:NFCC by even including the second example, but I plead WP:IAR (the usage is copyright-OK worldwide). The second example is borderline COPYVIO, certainly "plagiarism" (for those who care about such things) and bad writing as well. If editors worried about truly incoprorating their material into Wikipedia, we wouldn't have so many disputes of this nature. Physchim62 (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Contributor check
(Please forward to appropriate noticeboard or whatever if neccessary.)

seems to be proclaiming files with watermarks as his own creations, and a number of other suspicious activities. I think all of his contributions are going to get deleted, and I've blocked him for 24 hours, but it'd be good to have a few knowledgeable souls put things into perspective. Cheers, - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 16:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ack. Images are not my major thing, but I'll take a look. And there are others around here who do far more with them than I do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at many of the text contributions, and the biggest problems I see are those that naturally result when somebody is adding text in a language with which they may not be completely comfortable. (As, say, if I were to head to the Wikipedia in India.) I don't see any sign of text copyright infringement in the edits I've looked at—well over 100 at this point. I suspect that he or she is also a prolific IP contributor in the 117.204 range, as I see a lot of articles to which he or she has dedicated time (even initiating) that within a day or two are subject to intense attention by an IP in that range. There's only one file that he or she has uploaded still remaining, and I've tagged it for lack of licensing information. Looks like a screen cap, perhaps? I don't know from what. Hopefully, the block will catch his attention. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Copyvio Purge
I've organized a Great Copyvio Purge for WikiProject Images and Media, which has now begun! I thought that the members of this project might be interested in helping out. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Problematic image uploads
User:Devesh.bhatta uploads tons of watermarked and historical images and marks them all self-taken. Some of his own files may be mixed in there, but it's impossible to tell. I asked him to go through his images ages ago and say which he legitimately took, but he never did. He continues to upload copyrighted images (one watermarked one at least early June). Can someone deal with this? I don't have the time to go through all his photos. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch, I've found the source to two that have been moved to commons (and tagged them for a commons admin) + 1 here....in the first 4 I checked. will go through the rest as time permits - Peripitus (Talk) 02:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User responded poorly, has been indefinitely blocked. I've found the source of about 20 and not a single image that I am confident the licence is correct for. Deleting the lot - Peripitus (Talk) 09:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I found several sources confirming some of his images as copyvios too. The remaining photo File:Gandhi with family.jpg I nominated as a Life Magazine copyvio. ww2censor (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

*Knock, knock* any admins around?
Proposed history purges are awaiting your review :) MLauba (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I gave it a go, but my WP is being deathly slow for some reason. I'll try again later. – Toon 21:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You aren't alone. I haven't been able to finish CP yet today. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Its moving a teeny bit faster this evening - the category is all clear for the moment. Shell  babelfish 01:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yay. Something is getting done. :) Go you! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Stellar, thanks a bunch (and Woot and whatnot:) ) MLauba (talk) 07:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Contributor check needed
Not sure yet if he has enough contributions to warrant a full contributor survey, but unfortunately this has evidently been a long ongoing issue. He has a number of warnings from March 2008 (from User:Whpq), but has had several articles speedily deleted as copyright infringements as recently as March of 2009. I am trying to catch up on today's CPs (combination of slow Wikipedia and busy work schedule put me behind), but I think that a thorough check is going to be needed. (One of his articles was listed for closure today, which is how I came upon him.) I have found a number of additional infringements and several licensing violations, where he copies paragraphs from existing articles into new ones. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem has been going on even longer than Moonriddengirl suggests: the user first received a warning about copyright violation on 17 December 2007, and had received a number of warnings before the warnings referred to in March 2008. JamesBWatson (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Spread the word, "GFDL-only imports = "
Hi. I've now seen multiple administrators who have declined to delete articles freshly imported from GFDL-licensed sources. I've put a notice at AN and at WT:CSD to remind that GFDL-only sources are no longer usable on Wikipedia. At minimum, a site must use a license compatible with CC-By-SA, and GFDL is not. Please keep an eye out for this, as there may be many contributors and admins who don't realize that this has changed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Licensing violation letter; review?
So, our lovely complex new system requires lovely, complex new means of telling people they're violation it. I've taken a stab at Standard license violation letter. This is based off of the previously used letters for GFDL violations and the more recent one for CC-By-SA violations. Is it at all comprehensible? See any problems? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Another problematic uploader
Mshahidnawaz9's about 60 images all look rather suspect. Many Pakistan People's Party images, some collages, some of which I have already nomed, but most everything else looks bad too. Would someone give his contributions a look over? Thanks ww2censor (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neverending. :/ It's late in my part of the world, but I'll try to pitch in tomorrow. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Complex copyright question, chart
There's a copyright question at WT:CP that could use more eyes concerning a chart duplicated in many points from an existing chart. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Quotes from a single source; how much is too much?
Hi. There's a question at an FLC that may impact several other featured lists or featured list candidates (including Crafoord Prize. In both of these cases, we have list articles about prize or award winners with a quoted reference to the reasons that they received the honor. In both cases, the quoted reasons add up to a fairly substantial portion of the source. Rewriting in original language will be difficult, but for the most part, not impossible. The question is whether the use of quoted material there is extensive enough to represent a copyright concern and a problem under WP:NFC. Some of the quoted snippets may not have enough originality to represent a copyright concern; others do. Opinions welcome, here or there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Featured list candidates/Rumford Prize/archive1

A new multiple article project
The fabulous people at WikiProject Military History are helping out, since many of the articles involve their project. This is a good faith contributor (now retired from Wikipedia), placing text from his own books, but unfortunately due to the situation with his publishers he is not position to license that text. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Rcpaterson

Please don't give up on us, baby. Eyes?
Another multiple article infringer in the offing. I've got a heavy real work schedule today, but have been several hours examining every article he or she has contributed, finding infringement in dozens of articles--almost all of them. I have not been able to find a source for Tarasnice, Denel Raptor or Breda Folgore, but I see every reason to fear that there's a source out there (see difference in tone of what seems to be an original text contribution here). Anybody have more luck, please let me know. I have checked all of the articles this contributor created, but only one article he has contributed to otherwise...and I've already deleted the infringement from that. I'm now checking over the other articles to which he's contributed. And then to work. CP is falling behind today. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my - I'll wade into their contribs and see if I can't help sort out anything else that might have been copied. Shell  babelfish 14:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I may have gotten them all. I'm well underway. :) If you have time to pitch in with those three or at today's CP, that would be fabulous. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you do check his contribs, note that he's almost certainly also editing as an IP in the range 59.94. My conversation with him is at User_talk:Ramesh_vyas. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And while I'm chattering, let me note that the Indian government is not friendly about announcing the copyright status of NIC, but it is copyrighted. See . --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Governments are so sneaky. Cleaned up a few articles that were not started by the editor but had text copied in - head hurts, I think I'll sort the few CP from 30 June for a break :) Shell   babelfish 15:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: I believe the gun/ammo articles are coming from the publication Jane's Armour and Artillery. Briefs of the articles from this magazine are posted online for a time as teasers to encourage sales; I believe these are what is being copied to Wikipedia.  An example of the format used by the magazine can be found here.  Since I don't know any weapons manufacturers, I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to get my hands on an actual copy of the print version. Shell   babelfish 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tarasnice has some content copied from and a sentence verbatim from  but that doesn't cover all the text yet. Shell   babelfish 21:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've finished his contrib list. :) He's still following uncomfortably close to sources in some cases, but I believe that he is making a good faith effort to address this. Those of his articles still blanked come due for closure in a day or two, and I'll check in with him then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Home of the copyright problem
Hi. Currently, copyright concerns that are not tagged by real people for G12 are reviewed at two venues: WP:CP and WP:SCV. While WP:SCV is specifically for handling listings by CorenSearchBot, these articles are also listed at WP:CP. This means that the teams of editors on both pages often wind up reviewing the same articles, since those working SCV do not come to CP to note resolution here and those working CP do not go to SCV to note resolution there. User:MLauba and I were thinking that one good way to reduce the redundant effort is to refocus listings on one page, probably WP:CP. If the CorenSearchBot listings could be sectioned off in a subsection for each day, that would allow SCV volunteers to easily access the materials they usually handle. I wanted to gather thoughts on this idea. Good one? Bad one? A better way? Please offer input on this one, since I think it could simplify the lives of all parties involved. Seems like the best place for the conversation is probably at Wikipedia talk:Suspected copyright violations, where this is also listed. Thanks for any input you may offer there! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery case - what is happening?
The National Portrait Gallery case sounds like a clear-cut case of WP:Copyvio and is very bad for the reputation of WikiPedia - what is happening and how can we get involved? NBeale (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think everyone involves wishes it was clear-cut, but I can honestly say that that is quite probably the one thing it's not. The two sides are at this time divided. The general idea at the moment is not to go launching attacks at either side (as would be easy to do here), but to focus on reaching a settlement without resorting to a court case. Hence, it would be good to not just have another thread here. Instead, go look at the commons village pump, read up on all the material and then comment. People who do not reading long legal briefings should probably avoid the whole debateBold text. - Jarry1250 [ humorous – discuss ] 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NPG is not a clear-cut case of Copyvio, since Wikipedia's copyright policies conform to US law, and in the US this is not a copyright violation. See also the small thread at NFC. This case could well have far-reaching impact, if the Foundation decides that we must conform to copyright laws for nations of origin. As Non-U.S. copyrights points out, "there are at least 192 different national copyright régimes", and this could have real implications particularly for such projects as Wikisource. For instance, what are we to do with The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation and On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (1920 edition), both of which are evidently copyrighted in Germany until 2025? I say business as usual until our lawyer tells us otherwise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's entirely not clear-cut, as Jarry and MRG have pointed out. Much as the UK might like otherwise, its laws don't apply to the USA. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I rather hope they won't, when all is said and done, for the reasons I've expressed above. Whatever law we may conform to, having to conform only to one would be quite helpful. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this typical Summer?
For whatever reason, it looks like no matter what I do, these days WP:SCV grows at least twice as fast as I can work it down (including what WP:CP has already addressed). Is this a seasonal thing or what? If yes, can't wait for September and the end of the holiday season. MLauba (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not just you. There are 17 articles from 14 July alone, which is far more than are usually left at this point, with deletions and all. Holidays combined with a lack of manpower is making it nightmare-ish. – Toon 22:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Subdividing by days will help! Coren says he's up for whatever we decide to do, including creating subpages, although it'll be a couple of weeks before he can get around to it. Let's form a plan! We can do it! Yes, we can! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take this as a reference to Bob the Builder instead of the political one, just because it suits what we're doing so much better. MLauba (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Around my house, the theme-song for that is sung far more often than it ought, by rights, to be. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Flower Lane Church
Just in case the copyvio tag gets removed again - check User talk:MLauba and User talk:MLauba. One of us is reading WP:C incorrectly, and I don't see any sense in engaging in a revert war (plus, I'm going to be AfK for a while). Cheers, MLauba (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wading in... Shell  babelfish 17:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, Shell.


 * In the meantime, the original contributor has reworked the article in temp space (and I tweaked it a bit more). If one among you admins could do the move & delete magic without having to wait 4 more days, I'm sure the editor would be grateful. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 08:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Could someone please consider removing the copyvio tag? Thank you. --GnuDoyng (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The efficiency was much too low, so I did it myself. --GnuDoyng (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Robert Cain copyvio discussion
Input to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history from those familiar with copyvios would be handy. In short, an article which was a clear copyvio has been rewritten, but still leans heavily on the source. Is the action taken sufficient to purge the copyvio? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Input given. Will try to help with further revision soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

New multiple article, oh, so complicated
(See ). This individual had two listings at SCV today, and I have discovered under the top name infringement going back over a year. CorenSearchBot picked up problems under alternative accounts. See User talk:Mirza Barlas/Archives/2008/June and,. I need to run a contrib history. This is the first encountered under multiple usernames. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * , who is also
 * and
 * and
 * Just to note that this is quite a mess. I've opened an investigation (under the investigations tab) and I am following the language at Copyright violations that allows presumption of problem. While I'm not removing text without confirming that some infringement exists, where I find evidence of duplication, I am summarily removing this contributor's entire contribution to article (one username at a time). I have only blanked a couple, where other contributors are actively editing the article and may wish to salvage subsequent edits. The contributor is indef-blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Licensing question
There is a question of licensing at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. A contributor long ago placed content here that was licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA, which (of course) has never been compatible with Wikipedia's license. The article has subsequently been heavily edited and contains substantial new material (it has grown from 286 words to ~1570). The question is, since CC-By-NC-SA requires that "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one", are the contents contributed here by subsequent editors also a copyright violation of that original source, since the license is incompatible? In other words, must the roughly 1200 words of creative content that was contributed by Wikipedians be deleted along with the original text, if we cannot obtain permission to license the original under CC-By-SA? Please give feedback there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As tough as it sounds, my IANAL reading here is in line with your first reply. Anything directly building upon a CC-BY-NC-SA base is a derivative we cannot keep (haven't looked at the article in question). As you know, I'm a big stickler for the precautionary principle. If the article was initially seeded as CC-BY-NC-SA and everything in there is fleshing out that content, it may have to go :(


 * I'd only see exceptions for elements absolultey not present in the original content, eg if the article didn't mention school years, and these were added later, these could probably be kept. MLauba (talk) 21:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for feedback. Hop on over to WT:CP to opine, if you can. :) If more people get involved, it'll be helpful to have it all in one place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy messersmith
Just a quick sanity check, the above is listed at WP:SCV but there is no CSB report in the article's history. The first edit looks darn close to an article creation, not something I'd expect to see after a histpurge. Could an admin have a quick look at stuff which I might not be able to see? Cheers, MLauba (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. The deleted versions are stored at Jeremy messersmith. A new article was created after the first was G12ed and moved to the proper capitalization. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

One for checking out
I have absolutely no time to find another multiple article infringer, but there you have it. User:Leoudtohan. Currently blocked for a week indefinitely. Infringing in images and text. If anybody else has time to take a look, feel free. Otherwise, I'll pick it up later. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've come across too, who looks good faith, but has infringed in several articles I've found so far. Just a heads up for seven days' time :( – Toon 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Busy, busy... and here comes MLauba with his history purges

 * pokes the admins* plenty of stuff in there, if one of you wants to have some relief from text compares :) Looks like I really have to seek the means to pull my share of the burden soon(tm). MLauba (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clean up on aisle 7. Got you. I wonder if the template can be tweaked, though. The diff is time-consuming; for me, the timestamp would be far easier to work with. The regular deletion process is to delete the entire article and then restore the versions you want to keep. The diff is not visible from the article's history, which is what you see when you restore. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, whatever makes your life easier. Since I'm not 100% sure what your tools look like, is this what you need; 13:32, 31 July 2009? Or a different value? MLauba (talk) 13:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be perfect. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll update the template for the new timestamp parameter today and deprecate diff in a couple of days to make sure we don't have stray articles with the old format laying around. MLauba (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Completely forgot to put that one back in, what with the server troubles there was on the 31st. The template now only accepts timestamps and url as parameters, diff is gone. MLauba (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a wrinkle in this otherwise fabulous idea. :) Do time stamps differ for different users? I'm guessing they must. Life course theory, for example, is time stamped "19:29, 29 July 2009". As I read the history,, the last edit before yours was at " 17:29, 29 July 2009." Obviously, there's a two hour offset. Is this because of something I've done to my settings or because of something you've done to yours? This otherwise much simpler approach may not work. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch. My settings are on CET timezone - currently UTC +2 and UTC+1 in winter. I can change my settings of course but depending on who does the tagging, there's no chance to be sure of what timezone it's in. I wonder if there's any way to calculate the reviewer's local time out of a diff though... I'll think of something and post a question at the tech VP later today. MLauba (talk) 11:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? All edits are recorded in UTC regardless of timezone (e.g. the timestamps in this conversation). There is probably an option somewhere to change the way you see timestamps, but I don't think there's any way of ending up with a 2h 5min difference in timestamps where the actual difference was only 5. But then again, I haven't been following this thread :) . - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 13:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the word "timestamp" is a little confusing here - the time we each see in the logs, i.e. page history, is relative to your local time set in your preferences (which is often automatically taken from your browser). So while I would see the time now as being 16.10 on 4 August (operating on British Summer Time), someone say, in Berlin would see the log as 17.10, and someone in New York would see it as 11.10. Obviously the timestamps in our sigs, on the other hand, are done in UTC as they are stored as text; if they said our local time, the timeline of conversations would get very confusing. Luckily for me, UTC is the same as local time for a large portion of the year (although I still find the UTC clock gadget quite handy). – Toon 15:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's inconvenient. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The real issue here is placing a timestamp in a template which can be converted to / from UTC dending on the viewer. If one nominates an article for history purge, the purging admin's work is easiest if he has a date & time to look at. But what I copy comes out of my localized view, and the resulting time should again be localized to whatever admin does the purge so that everyone uses the same reference. I wonder if there's a way to extract localized timestamps from diffs... MLauba (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another problem with the timestamps; there are occasions where there will be more than one edit in the same minute which leaves the person doing the history purge to wonder which one is the correct place to start. Shell  babelfish 10:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, the safest bet is to go back and use diffs, is it? MLauba (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

West Virginia AFL-CIO
I would like to request that this be purged. Thanks, Triplestop x3  21:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty to complete the template for you. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Saint Thomas Health Services
has created several articles including:

Parts of these articles (and I suspect her other articles) are blatent rip offs of the hospitals own websites and other publications e.g.


 * http://www.youtube.com/user/sthsorthopedics
 * http://www.stthomas.org/hospitalservices/cancerservices/files/2008CancerAnnualReport.pdf
 * http://www.heartasone.com/chestpainnetwork/
 * http://stthomas.dev-sths.com/history.php
 * http://hickman.dev-sths.com/about.php
 * http://www.hickmanhospital.com/about.php

Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.kcbs.us/about_history.php
 * http://www.kcbs.us/about_history.php

Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have blanked the Barbeque Society article and listed it at WP:CP, with notes at the talk page highlighting some areas of concern. Still evaluating. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This may explain a lot. Perhaps this user is a marketing professional hired to promote certain industries on Wikipedia? If this is the case, he or she may be able to verify permission. I have listed several other articles and am still evaluating. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

←I have evaluated all contributions, though I can't guarantee I haven't missed something. If I have, please follow the procedure at WP:CP for blanking and listing it as necessary. I've left a note explaining the need for permission for the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit filter?
I've launched a conversation here about a potential edit filter for the removal of the copyvio tag. Please join in if interested. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SCV if you're bored
Hi,

Just a quick note, I thought I'd have some time in the hotel to work down the backlog this week but my travel schedule seems to prevent me doing anything serious there this week, so if you're bored, spend some time weeding out the reports if you can :) MLauba (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Willwal
A majority of User:Willwal's image contributions have been deleted as copyright violations. After their most recent warning, Willwal's tenth edit was to upload this copyvio image, with a PD-self tag. Willwal hasn't acknowledged that these uploads are unhelpful, and continues to plagiarise media from the Internet.

I do not trust that any of his/her other image contributions are not also infringements. Going by this image's exif data, it is a photo of a photo, and no indication is given of the source. It's not obvious where the other images came from, but I doubt that Willwal is the original artist of any of them. I'm listing this here because I've had no response to my concerns from Willwal. — mholland (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Spyros Vassiliou
Subject to repeated readdition of copy / pasted material from. It's at ANI but of course since there's the scary words copyright in there, everyone stays clear of that. Removal, warnings, tags are systematically removed. In short, this needs admin attention. MLauba (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I slapped a CV template on the article and left a personal message on the contributor's talk page. I hope that will put the brakes on and open a discussion. If than not, a block will be in order. — Cactus Writer |   needles  08:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Stifle's audits
I have recently completed my audit of the non-free music video screenshot category for inappropriate images. If anyone has any suggestions of the next image category/ies I should audit, please suggest them. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It has struck me that we must have a load of copyright-ineligible logos tagged as non-free when they are, in fact, public domain. Whether retagging them is a useful occupation when the status quo is not a problem remains to be seen though. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 15:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it's possible, but it would be practical for book covers to see if articles about books have more than one cover. Quite often a cover is replaced with the first edition cover and then the old one is kept for decorative purposes. I already cleaned up dozens of those. Garion96 (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The book covers suggestion is a good one. I don't see the logo one as hugely productive, seeing as the images are neither copyright violations nor in any danger of being deleted. In the end I have taken up magazine covers for now. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

PD dates
Hi. I've raised a question about the "1911" date for PD status in the United States at the copyrights policy talk page and would very much appreciate feedback there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Abraham Kefeli
Needs admin eyes, repeated re-addition of copyrighted content, one of the contributors claims permission, has been advised on how to proceed. I'm at 3RR, have requested temporary full page protection. MLauba (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Off to look into it. However, note that you are protected from sanctions for 3RRing over copyvio. If it's borderline, I can particularly understand your wanting input, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. One thing I would recommend if you find yourself in this situation: if an editor is warring to restore material, use copyvio to blank the article while you discuss it. At this point, it seems that you have dialogue going now. I'll enter into that and am watching the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I would enter into that, but it seems you've got it all well in hand. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Had, calling it a day, leaving the madhouse entirely to your senior & expert watch. MLauba (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

One to check
Could someone have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Ferrari2503 ? The patchwork of redlinks suggests something is up. Jarry1250 20:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We need more image people in these parts. :) I was about to ask an image question, too. Maybe I'll take it elsewhere. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Feedback, pretty please
Copying within Wikipedia could use some review. User:Flatscan would like more feedback before we put it at village pump, and I think it is sorely needed. I spent most of my weekend cleaning up after a serial copyright infringer who also infringed on other Wikipedians. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic opened up at WT:CSD re GFDL-only sources
Since I had a couple of declines of GFDL-only speedies I tagged on WP:SCV items, I posted a reminder there, and you would of course be welcome to add your 2 cents at WT:CSD. MLauba (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd probably be worth posting a reminder at WP:AN that GFDL-only is no longer acceptable. – Toon 14:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So noted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy-paste
Brand, spanking new and potentially helpful. This is linked from Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It could also be linked from that message under the edit box - where it says "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages or images." Currently only "public domain" is wikilinked. Rd232 talk 19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That would work for me. I know several others who have spoken here in the past have also expressed a wish that we could prevent some of this, rather than always playing cleanup (notwithstanding that we might work ourselves out of a job. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Out of a job"? That's optimistic! I'd just be pleased if it made any difference to the workload at all... :) NB I don't know where to make the change, which bit of MediaWiki it is. Rd232 talk 20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like optimism. It's a happy place. :D Somebody once told me where that was, but I've forgotten. I'll see what I can find out. Hmm. Maybe somebody at the HD will know.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody does. :) User:Xenon54. Proposed at MediaWiki talk:Edittools. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes! The copy paste page adds a tremendously helpful link. Nicely done, Rd232. I like the strong and succinct emphasis on "Do not copy-paste." At times it seems our CV messages are more directed towards obtaining permissions and releases rather than first emphasizing the "do not bother." I am thinking especially of autobiographies, resumes and promotional materials which will need to be rewritten anyway and sourced elsewhere to meet basic criteria. A greater emphasis by WP on "Do not copy-paste" except in very, very, very limited situations can be a great preventative tool. — Cactus Writer |   needles  06:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Need some clarification on public domain copypasta here. Viriditas (talk) 09:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Added my .02$ MLauba (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Need clarification between article space and talk page space. I have run into users who believe that talk space is immune from copyright concerns, only article space ie. it's ok to copy-paste entire sections of books into talk pages for discussion purposes. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, article space is given more allowances for copyright concerns: you can point out to them that WP:NFC, for instance, only allows non-free images on article space. There's no exception at WP:C for other project spaces. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Briley Casanova
From WP:SCV - this probably may need a history cleanup but I'll be damned if I know what to keep and what to toss out. Would appreciate another pair of eyes on that article's history (it's currently not displaying any vios BTW, so I don't see a point in listing it at CP). MLauba (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, ML. I took a look at this. It appears that no other editor added copyrightable text other than the original uploader and the copyvio text was deleted by the contributor after it was listed at CP. To clean the history, than I would remove everything prior to the last Sept 29 reversion by the original contributor and selectively delete the one mistaken restoration by another editor that came directly afterward. However, for the moment, I've added the cclean template to the talk page and that should be enough. Unless there is an actual complaint about the copyvio text in the history, than cleaning the history is optional. Hope this makes some sense. Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  10:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion
I like to ask for a second opinion about possible copy vio's detected in the articles Thomas A. DeFanti, Werner Ulrich and G. A. Swanson. I have the impression that the current detection, not by me, is over the top. It is my understanding that things like the biography section and the listing of publications for example can't be considered a copyvio according to WP:Plagiarism because both are sort just neutral representation of facts. I used this assumption to selected possible copyvio's in my other work.

But if I am mistaken here, I have a lot more work to be done. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First, WP:Plagiarism has nothing to do with WP:Copyrights and should not be read as giving any indication of what you may or may not use under the copyrights policy. Plagiarism and its handling on Wikipedia are matters of consensus. Copyright is a matter of US law, and the policy is devised to help keep us compliant with it.


 * That said, a list of publications is not a copyvio if you are not reflecting human creativity. You can reproduce a complete list of publications. You can reproduce a list of publications between year x and year y. You can produce a limited list of your own devise, but you cannot reproduce a limited list if it reflects creativity on the part of the original compiler: say, "the best of."


 * I'm afraid that material doesn't get clearance just because it's listed in a biography section. While a sentence like "Thomas DeFanti was born in Kentucky" would be a bare presentation of facts, text like "In the 20 years has been at University of Illinois at Chicago, DeFanti has amassed a number of credits, including: use of EVL hardware and software for the computer animation produced for the Star Wars movie", at, is certainly copyrightable, and I'm afraid that your "In the next 20 years at the University, DeFanti has amassed a number of credits, including: use of EVL hardware and software for the computer animation produced for the Star Wars movie" infringes on that. Complicating matters further, copyright covers not only the language used, but less tangible elements such as selection of facts. Close paraphrasing may clarify that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at the Thomas A. DeFanti, where I have responded on the talkpage for others to see. Could you take a look at Werner Ulrich and G. A. Swanson as well? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a lot that I find worrisome about this.


 * I wish Mdd could be persuaded that the least frustrating way (for him) to reduce the dimensions of the problem might be for him to permit the articles that I, or anyone, may have reduced more than he likes to just sit, for a while. Any victims of "current detection" that may be "over the top" don't need to be addressed for copyvio, That was the whole point of my "over the topness". There's no harm done to the topics if they're simply "stubbified" or the equivalent. They can always be beefed up at Mdd's leisure another time. (I mean, if he had gone on vacation for a few weeks, he might have come back to find all kinds of activity from other editors that would distress him, on all sorts of grounds. I have nothing against him asking for "second opinions" from you on anything he likes, and it's none of my business, really. But he's trying to keep too many plates spinning at once. I know I shouldn't comment any more on his work, but I had to say this, because I really am concerned for him, for reasons beyond the copyvios.
 * I hope you understand Moonriddengirl, I'm not questioning you, in regard to your giving him detailed considerations of particular examples (god knows every one of these examples is an education to me) but I wish Mdd wouldn't worry himself so much about the history of every page, when there's so much to consider on the current pages of the articles he's produced. It speaks well of him that he's so determined to re-learn so much stuff. I think maybe he could afford to relax a little and not sweat the details so much; he can do that anytime from the perspective of a clean slate. It's just easier that way all around. Bacrito (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record: Talking about specific cases helps me understand, as I did with MRG about Timothy F. H. Allen, see here two days ago. In that particular comment, I was insecure about if I could have restored the part of the articles. Now I think, I shouldn't have reverted that section at all, but waited for MRG's comment first. At Thomas A. DeFanti, Werner Ulrich and G. A. Swanson article, I sort of have similar problems. Instead of acting on my own (as I did in the Timothy F. H. Allen article) I asked for a second opinion. The main reason is that I don't want to make the same (mis)step at the Timothy F. H. Allen article again : reverting without asking first. MRG comment made me realize now, I indeed (as B suggests) "let it sit for a while".

More in general: I indeed still have problems getting focused on both on the bigger picture? the reasons why? the procedures how to solve them? an getting focused on the individual particular problems? what I can do? and what I cannot do at this moment to fix the problem? I just want to get the drill right in a "least frustrating way". Thank you MRG, thanks B for your comment here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, the big picture: the first thing we need to do is swiftly eliminate the publication of all copyrighted text from these Wikipedia articles. The reason is that so long as this material is published, we are actively in violation of a United States law and one that could put the whole project in jeopardy. While Wikipedia currently is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, our right to do so has been challenged before. If it is ever legally successfully challenged, our best defense is going to be demonstrating that we exercise due diligence in preventing and dealing with copyright infringement.


 * This is why I have suggested that if you cannot swiftly revise material, it should be blanked with copyvio, as I did with the article at Mathematical diagram. It is to be hoped that this material can be repaired soon, but ultimately Wikipedia is better off with no article on a subject than one that could lead to its being successfully prosecuted for contributory copyright infringement.


 * Typically, we address these situations by creating a list of potentially problematic articles and evaluating them. If the list is large, we may presumptively remove text by a contributor who has shown widespread misunderstanding of copyright. As Copyvio says, "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major prose contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." If contributors are doing this, the best thing you can do is continue evaluating other articles. The ones that have been stubbed or presumptively cleaned can then later be evaluated at your leisure so that you can return material that has been written in your own words.


 * I think asking feedback is a good idea, if it can clear up misunderstandings such as that material in a biography section does not represent a copyright concern. However, it is probably not a good use of time right now to spend too much time evaluating material that has already been removed. You have been prolific, and there is a lot of work ahead:.


 * Again, the big picture: first step is to identify and remove or repair the copyrighted text. Repair should be the goal only if it can be done swiftly. If it cannot, removal should be the first effort, followed by repair at a more comfortable schedule. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you. I have continued remove and/or repair copyrighted text in my thematical article. I will continu tomorrow, and when I finish maybe discuss some further. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning for attention: Roman Moiseyev
Most likely an autobiography, was stubified by Thel, then reverted multiple times by a Russian IP (most likely Moiseyev, they have the same behaviour of blanking their userpage after getting warned), reverted to last clean version. Might warrant a quick revision delete to Thel's stub and removing the subsequent IP edits to make re-reversion a bit more difficult. MLauba (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The material has also been added to the article talk page as well. -- Whpq (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed it from the article talk and deleted the article's history. I've also cautioned the newly registered contributor participating about COI and removed some inappropriate material added to the newly cleaned article. I've put a cclean at the article talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Launching Investigations as an independent entity
I thought I might be a good idea to separate this out. Of course, this would need village pumping before any action is taken, but I wanted to get some thoughts here before going ahead with it. I've mildly tweaked the template (including de-biblifying it, which gave me a hearty laugh :D) and added usage notes: User:Moonriddengirl/cclean2. Here it is in action (and here, without username). I'd like to make it as clear and concise as possible and would welcome help there. I'd also like to know if the usage caution I've placed seems clear enough. I've been around the Wikipedia world long enough to know that this would be abused. :/ In fact, I wonder if we should add a parameter to link it to a multiple article infringement investigation to prevent its being misused? And perhaps it should not be applied until an administrator has confirmed multiple article infringement at said investigation?

I presume that the investigation listing would be a linked subpage of WP:CP. Right now it doesn't really seem to warrant being a separate page, as there are only 10...and the first of those I would remove before moving. But I really suspect that if this is adopted and publicized, that number will grow. I was thinking of requesting a format like, say, the following:
 * Example 1: [diff of infringement]; [source]
 * Example 2: [diff of infringement]; [source]
 * Example 3: [diff of infringement]; [source]
 * Example 3: [diff of infringement]; [source]

Verifiable examples will save some wasted time, since this is obviously subject to abuse. Are three articles sufficient evidence to launch a contribution check? I guess this is kind of wandering into territory like suspected sock puppetry. (Investigations should be much easier; cleanup much harder.)

Once we settle ideas, I will sandbox a sample page and process and fly the flag for the community to see who salutes it. (Strange idiom, that.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The template looks fine with me. For the rest, and I know this is going into WP:CREEP and WP:BURO, I'm wondering whether we shouldn't have something much more formalized like WP:SPI? I also state this because I have a hunch that if CSB starts running on patrolled revisions (once these are implemented) we may discover several thousands of year old vios. Having a "professional" process, ideally with separate clerks to determine if a full scale investigation is required then run the contributor listing software and create the investigation page may, possibly, offset part of the workload. MLauba (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If we could get support for that and a workforce to help with it, that might be a good idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and can'o'worms: Multiple infringer, adds big chunk of text in 2005, bid chunk of text gets edited over and over until nothing of the chunk remains but what we have is an unauthorized derivative work... MLauba (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding potentialy scanning newly patrolled revisions, surely there would still be the problem of the thousands of WP mirrors being picked up - the same reason that CSB doesn't scan existant articles at the moment? It's pretty difficult to use a bot to compare old articles as many are mirrored within hours. – Toon 16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I suspect CSB II will need some additional exclusion lists as well as one rule to see if there's an url on the alleged source that points back to wikipedia.
 * That being said, assuming we do not run a CSB II on newly patrolled revision because of the mirrors, we're going to face another difficulty: the policy calls for reviewers to also check for copyvios. Without CSB II, we either limit reviewers to a slow grind and an extremely small group of editors to handle 3+ million articles, or we in practice moot the copyvio policy because running every single revision to patrol through Google is something no reviewer is going to do past their first week.
 * Personally, I'd rather have a mounting backlog listed for copyvio investigation than having several thousands of volunteers blissfully validating standing copyvios over and over until an article gets nommed for GA or FAC. MLauba (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Template alteration
Okay. This version links to the copyright cleanup subpage, so we'd have to create a standard heading for that. I can do that. Or find somebody who can. Once we know what the namespace would be. It looks like this. The username parameter is now mandatory, and currently the usage is USERNAME. What might we call this cleanup page? Contributor copyright investigations? Copyright investigations? I'd probably house the template at Template:cci if the former. I prefer it not only because CCI is available (and CI is not) but because it seems a little clearer distinction from CP. OTOH, CI is simpler. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * CCI has my vote. BTW, to forestall some of the objections we had when we first launched the contrib check subpage, I'd make it policy that any denied case (in other words insufficient evidence to launch a full contrib investigation) and any closed case (in other words, a case where an investigation was launched and then completed) be archived and then immediately revision deleted / redacted (can't wait till that functionality goes live) to only show the archive header with the decision / finding of fact. That way, we retain the ability to go back and verify if something requires it, but on the other hand, the innocent don't have the allegations stand, and the reformed won't keep carrying the baggage forever. We should also make it clear that frivolous requests are a severe breach of NPA and can lead to blocking or even banning.
 * I think that's the way to bring people on board. As the last round of this argument has shown, some people unfortunately consider socking a much more severe offense than repeated copyvios. So we have to make sure they're not getting turned away by the proposal. MLauba (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I, too, worry about its potential for misuse, which is why I put the caution on the template. Unfortunately, though, I think we've got pretty clear evidence that there is need. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

First step
Okay. My first mock-up is at User:Moonriddengirl/Contributor copyright investigations. The header is at User:Moonriddengirl/CCIheader. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)