Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Archive 3

Image issue update
For information on how Commons is dealing with the legally nebulous Uruguay Round Agreements Act (which retroactively restored copyright to some foreign works that had previously been public domain material in the US), see Commons:Licensing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright cleaners in crisis
Hi, guys. We are developing quite the backlog at WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys, and I'd like some help brainstorming solutions, pretty please. The list just keeps getting bigger, and we've got lists that aren't completed from, well, an embarrassingly long time ago. New ones come up and the old ones get left, and occasionally I find myself working on one that isn't even included here but managed elsewhere. I know many of the people likely to read this are already very busy with WP:SCV and WP:CP (which I think take precedence). How can we get more attention to this problem and more people involved in cleanup?

I've considered that perhaps we should propose to move the page into the main space and out of the umbrella of the project. That might make it clearer that all interested contributors are welcome, and it would also allows us to drop a "backlogged" on it...for whatever good that might do. :) I'm not sure, honestly, it would do any good at all.

I'm trying to think where we could publicize this to attract contributors who are willing and able to help.

I've also wondered if we need to propose stronger handling of multiple article copyright infringers. I'm not talking about blocking; I'm talking about presumptively deleting their contributions. Even though Copyvio permits it, I generally do not delete content without at least verifying some copying. But, obviously, this approach is highly time consuming and is contributing to this backlog. I'm thinking about a template, perhaps. I've tested one here and here. What do you think? And how many copyvios do we need from a contributor before we take this step? I figure that it is important to identify the contributor, not to embarrass him or her, but because it will simplify for other users identifying where the problem text was introduced. If we have to add diffs, it will take considerably more time, particularly since contributors contribute incrementally to articles over many, many edits. (Currently, the template is at User:Moonriddengirl/cclean2.)

Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, I've found Special:Nuke quite effective when dealing with editors who introduce a large number of copyvios in a short period of time - but of course this won't help with long-term contributors. Also, I like the somewhat biblical-sounding opening of that template, M. Seriously though, I think we need to raise awareness - moving the pages out of a WikiProject subpage could be a first step, if we can then post notices at AN and WP:VP to find willing editors, I think we could make progress. I mean even as part of this WikiProject I'm barely aware of the cleanup's existence. I'm not sure if we can get it added to some of the more visible areas, such as Wikipedia copyright and the Community bulletin board. Do you think it would be viable to get an article in Signpost covering the project? I notice that they have a "WikiProject report" this week, and Signpost is delivered to quite a few talk pages etc. – Toon 20:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Since we're talking about mounting backlogs, here's some additional news: following the discussion at WT:RFA, I asked Coren to investigate whether he could sic CSB on any newly patrolled revision so that we start having a way to systematically crack down on some of those vios that get introduced after article creation but can sit there for years unnoticed.
 * The downside is of course that we'll have a lot more to check out.
 * Also, there seems to be a lot of our members who have stopped posting here or outright vanished, and aside from Stifle, it's only us text copyvio people participating here at all? Before we try and get covered in the WikiProject section of the Signpost, we may want to try and conduct a roll call. MLauba (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Having CSB check the newly patrolled pages is a good idea. It's easier to deal with a copyvio that is fresh than one that has had subsequent edits applied.  I'm a member of WikiProject Wikify and check in on newly tagged (undated tag) articles and often find new article being copied.  It's especially prevalent with Myspace pages for bands. -- Whpq (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for feedback, all. :) I agree with Whpq that fresh copyvios are easiest to deal with (and even with multiple article infringers, since as Toon notes Nuke can help then), and I appreciate your taking that step with Coren, MLauba! I suspect burnout is a big problem in this field, MLauba, as Garion noted at your RfA. I empathize. :/ Every time I start to feel it, I try to do something about it: like, say, launching a project or suggesting we take investigations community wide. :D Even if we're down in active membership, I think a signpost article would probably be a good idea, as it might bring the more people we so desperately need. :) But maybe we should try launching the Investigations first so that our information is up to date. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My immediate thought when reading Mrg's first sentence to this section was that we need to take a stronger stance in deleting the material. Our efforts are most often directed toward keeping the text. We spend considerable amounts of time explaining how to obtain permission, how to rewrite articles and, more often than not, simply finding other references and rewriting the text ourselves. These intentions our wonderful and are fundamental to the entire project. However, while copyright backlogs are overflowing, I'm afraid that the nice intentions must become secondary to prudent action.

When it comes to the multiple abuse contributor, I would agree with a strong presumptive stance. Mrg's templates are a good first whack, but I am also concerned about the accusatory tone. We should be firm about cleaning the mess, but I do worry about pummeling someone in the public stockade. I guess more emphasis on deleting the text (possibly by referencing a discussion at CV) and less on the particular editor.

In most cases it seems the multiple abuser creates a set of articles belonging to a particular project. (Let's say four or more articles). I'm uncertain of the current procedure, but it might be a good idea to notify the project about the article set, naming the articles, and state firmly that the text will need to be deleted unless project editors can clean it up. Drawing in editors who are particularly interested in the specific material is often key in finding help. Toward that end we may also try to build a recruitment system in which editors within particular projects declare themselves as "copyvio specialists" -- editors willing to handle clean up on articles within their area of interest. They can be notified when something within their expertise needs attention. — Cactus Writer |   needles  15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would not want the template to be misused. :/ But I also want to keep it simple; having to add a diff for the contributions removed would slow the process considerably. What about if it were edited to link to a cleanup page? That way, only contributors who actually have a cleanup listing would be noted by the tag, and it wouldn't have to include their names. I like the idea of recruiting project members. With recent issues, the contributions of the Gastropod and Opera projects are exemplary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just had an evil thought... add something to the copyvio template that generates an article alert for the corresponding wikiproject... MLauba (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL! Some of them have signed up for that. :D It's on the alert list; others, alas, may not be interested. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm... not such an evil thought. How about involving that Article Rescue Squad group? They consistently flock to Afd articles that are tagged with the rescue template. And, yes, the link to another page on the template would be enough to soften it for me. — Cactus Writer |   needles  15:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea! As for linking to another page, it'll partially depend on where that page winds up. For now, I suppose, I can presume this namespace. Hmm. I'll go poke. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey all, MRG asked me to take a quick look at this. I must agree unfortunately, as I've said in the past, that the only way to cope with the backlogs is indiscriminate reversion or deletion of all of the contributor's major prose article edits.

I've come up with a proposal for a process that I tentatively call "All contributions for deletion", intended for users who have such an extensive history of copyright violations or other furtive problems that their contributions cannot be trusted. It works like this:


 * Anyone can nominate a user. A subpage is created for that user describing their history of problems, number of edits, when and how the problems were uncovered, and what action is recommended (generally, a block and deletion of all contributions). A notice will be placed on ANI announcing the discussion.
 * A discussion proceeds for 7 days on whether all contributions of the editor should be removed, during which the contributor themselves and any other user can participate in the discussion.
 * If there is consensus around removing their contributions:
 * The subpage will be updated to include a link to their list of contributions, the user's status (banned, being mentored, rehabilitated, whatever), and the status of the cleanup effort for that user.
 * Someone will go through all their significant article contributions and revert or delete all of their changes, linking to the deletion discussion for justification, and updating the status as they go along.

This is intended to address a few problems with the current approach. First of all, there's a separation between the drama-ful announcement of a long-term copyviolator, and the less spectacular clean-up effort. Often long ANI threads proceed about a user, but then everybody on ANI forgets about it. We want to keep those people around for the cleanup by making sure the status page is on their watchlist. Second, this legitimizes the dramatic action that you have to take in removing all of a contributor's contributions, and avoids the inevitable conflict where somebody gets upset and tries to stop you and you have to stop and explain. Additionally, anyone who notices the changes can easily see the full discussion and current status and can jump in if they're interested, and you can post notices linking to the subpage on project pages.

Let me know what you think. :-) Dcoetzee 22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for coming by, Derrick. :) Since I stopped by your talk page, there's been some additional sectioning below. I point it out in case you missed it. :) Generally speaking, I like this idea, although I think 7 days is probably too long. I suspect that 3-5 days is plenty for generating sufficient evidence to make a determination and more may simply extend the drama. It still puts a lot of pressure, though, on the "someone" who goes through their significant contributions. Ideally, we need teams to help out with this. Extricating their contributions from later modifications can be a bear, although it's still simpler than checking said contributions for copyvio and then doing it. :P I would suggest, though, that we might minimize the drama by a vetting process such as we had been discussing below--perhaps something like SPI. Perhaps, looking at the rough at User:Moonriddengirl/Contributor copyright investigations, "all contributions for deletion" might be the clean-up phase? What do you think? (There's also a draft of a template, User:Moonriddengirl/cclean2) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I deal mostly with images, and I've been known to nominate a user's entire image upload log for PUF. It could well be that "users for deletion" (:P) would be necessary judging from what I see here. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you, too, Stifle. I've carried on with this conversation in the new section CCI & ACD below. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS Verification for two articles please?
Hi, could one of the OTRS volunteers try and check whether there's any trace of permissions for the following two articles: Both are now listed at WP:CP under today's listing. Thanks. MLauba (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Asia Petrochemical Industry Conference, claimed sent on October 9th
 * Gulf Petrochemicals and Chemicals Association, claimed sent on September 3rd
 * Hi. I'm not able to check right now, although I'm told that my real computer (as opposed to this laptop thing) may be returning to me late today. (Please, please!) I'll ask User:Stifle. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking now. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't find anything on either one. However, the OTRS search system is pretty terrible, so there is a chance it might be there waiting to be handled. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Revision Deletion policy will impact our work
An upcoming feature allows admins to perform history deletions (redactions as the policy now calls it) better, faster and safer than the hack you're currently using. Copyvio being one of the criteria to apply the policy, your input would probably be very much welcome at WT:REVDEL. MLauba (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Edits have been made that appear to address the concerns presented by MLauba and Moonriddengirl. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for the update. With everything else going on around me, I haven't been able to keep up with that one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

CCI candidate?
has some quite worrying additions in his recent contrib history, and his talk page paints a similar picture. Need some more eyes, I'll clean up what I found in the meantime. MLauba (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Straw, camel. Camel, straw. :) Do we need a listing at WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Histpurge for Shannon-Fano-Elias coding?
Can I actually leave an IP as the article creator? I'm tempted to decline this one but would welcome more opinions. MLauba (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you can. IPs used to be able to create pages. The reason they aren't is because it cuts down the mountain of vandalism. But if the first IP edit is a good one, I think there's no reason not to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

re WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Coin945
I've been doing some cleanup on the above Contribution Surveyor listing. There are now 4 items left, and I was hoping to get a second opinion, as it's my first time with one of these.

The Aunt Arctic, Horrible Histories and Club Penguin look like they could be original work to me, but any search strings I try get hopelessly tangled up in the various Wikipedia mirrors and subject-specific Wikis which have pretty much the same information. The infringing contributions from this survey were generally direct copy-pastes on the subject of musical films, from a short list of websites, so the form of these contributions is significantly different, and I would be inclined to leave them be.

For the edits to A Matter of Loaf and Death, the only one that concerns me is this one which introduces a passage which seems to have come from this website. The site is licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution which doesn't mention restricting commercial use. However, the text doesn't appear to have been attributed at the time and looks like it has been altered quite a lot since it was added. Should this be removed, left, attributed on talk/dummy edit or something else? Thanks -- Kateshortforbob talk  10:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * First, you rock. :) The CC-By source is fine, since CC-By permits modifications. It should be attributed on the article's face with CCBYSASource, which is usable with any CC-By-SA compatible source that does not also permit reuse under GFDL. I'll take care of that. If the others look okay to you and don't conform to his general problems, then I'd certainly say you should call this a job very well done. And, sincerely, from somebody else who cares about copyright problems on Wikipedia, thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks (and thanks for the barnstar also)! I've cleared the remaining items from the survey and marked the page completed; hope this was correct. Unfortunately, my home computer is now a bit borked (although it was somewhat entirely self-inflicted), but if there's more copyright work to be done, I'll definitely be back when I'm up and running again! -- Kateshortforbob talk  11:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about your computer, and, wow! It never occurred to me that we could ask computing questions at the reference desk! I hope that you get up and running soon. :) If you like copyright problems, I do believe that we can keep you happy forever. We're currently trying to come up with a better system for these multiple article infringers and could certainly use help refining that also. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

CCI & ACD
I've updated the CCI mock-up at User:Moonriddengirl/Contributor copyright investigations (the header is at User:Moonriddengirl/CCIheader) to include "All contributions for deletion." Feedback on this is sorely desired. I'm going to be busy with work for almost all of the upcoming week and in addition I have an international guest (and did I mention my computer is down? What good timing! I expect I shall now come down with flu or something), but I would like to launch this for community input sometime very soon. Frankly, the overwhelming workload of multiple article infringers has me on the verge of copyright burnout, and we desperately need some process in place for dealing with these.

I worry that the page I've created may be unnecessarily bureaucratic, and I welcome simplification. Please don't worry about hurting my feelings. I'm very much focused on the end goal: a workable solution for multiple article and image infringement. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello? Is this thing on? :) Please allow me to point out the brand new listing for WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Singingdaisies, which right now (before i subdivide it) is 548 kilobytes of copyright investigationy goodness. Really, folks, this is critical, and I would dearly love to get more input before tossing it out to the Wikipedia world for commentary, implementation or rejection. These guys don't stop coming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's on and I'm not done looking at my new shiny buttons yet :) Seriously, was still collecting my thoughts. I think the mockup has one weakness, it induces TL;DR. I'd trim it down to the barebones abstract and move the relevant details to a separate guideline. That being said (like I mentioned at my RfA), I currently believe this is an ailment common to pretty much our entire set of policies and guidelines around copyright that we need to address. So there you go, I can only comment on form, but from my current point of view, the substance is spot on. MLauba (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I certainly understood that you are busy. :) Anyway, I've gone over it with a hatchet, including squeezing ACD into clean-up rather than making it a formal process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

←I've made a few more changes and another template and a proposal description at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Contributor copyright investigations. While I'd still much welcome feedback, I suppose it would be best to move it there. I'll publicize this for further input probably on Thursday, since I expect to have more time to discuss it thereafter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm grabbing your torch, commenting that your proposal description is fine, and up the ante with User:MLauba/Contributor copyright investigations where I poured some thoughts on the entire procedure. Your move ;) MLauba (talk) 12:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll be right over. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I really like your thoughts and would like to incorporate some of it directly into my page, if you don't mind. (I'll attribute, of course, on account of what kind of example would it be if I didn't? :D) One thing, I'm afraid that "at least two instances on evidence should be visible to any editor" may be an unnecessary burden on the process. I posit the following: suppose a contributor finds an F9able image and when he tags it sees that the contributor who uploaded it has had dozens of images F9ed according to his or her talk page. Should it be required that he verify at least two more (and not tag them) in order to open a listing? I'm concerned that this may lead to said contributor deciding to move on and leave it for somebody else to trip over, maybe another dozen or two images down the road. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being slow to get back here, I accidentally killed my internet connection on account of updating my router's firmware and afterwards realizing I had completely forgotten the original preset passwords for my account - which the router of course reverted to after the update.
 * Good point re: the non-deleted contribs, I didn't think of that. You're right, that's too harsh. I thought adding this in order to make sure we can have non-admin clerks - on the other hand, a talk page history, even regularly blanked, that is stock-full of warnings for deleted articles or images tells a story of its own. Go right ahead with the rest, then :)MLauba (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have incorporated and merged your ideas with mine. What do you think? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We're good to go, methinks. Village Pump, then Signpost? MLauba (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

←All right. It is at Contributor copyright investigations. I've created a few support templates and an instruction page. I'm going to first invite feedback from contributors who have had to navigate this process and then pump it, publicizing it as well at appropriate points. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Pumped, posted at AN and opened an RfC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia
Wikipedia currently has the process pages for Help:Merge and WP:Split, but no clear guideline in place to ensure that contributors understand the attribution requirements for reusing text within Wikipedia. It is brushed on at WP:C, but not clear, and I believe that expanding its coverage there would muddy the waters of that policy's primary purpose. I would like to propose this new guideline to govern Help:Merge and WP:Split and to which contributors may easily be pointed when they inadvertently violate copyright by failing to attribute (and this happens all the time). Feedback and assistance at that talk page in reaching consensus would be very much appreciated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is now an RfC on this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS check?
Hi,

Could one of you check if there's a permission for using contents from http://www.seaf.com/ for Small Enterprise Assistance Funds (SEAF)? Thanks. MLauba (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can do a search. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. It's at 2009090110066994. The oddity here is that the article was deleted as spam, so the permission was never logged. But it's all on the up and up as far as copyright is concerned. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Gotta keep you busy, now that CP is entirely cleared 2 minutes after midnight :) MLauba (talk) 14:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hooray. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Problematic uploads
I don't really have time to figure out how to work the new shiny page right now - my apologies - but has a lot of concerning uploads. I deleted a bunch that were blatantly obvious copyvios, but there are a lot of older images of stadia that fit all the likely characteristics - lots of different (or missing) metadata which indicates that he owns a ton of cameras, aerial and action shots which appear professionally done, etc. Some of them are on Commons as well so those could use a look. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) We have a distinct shortage of commons admins around here, but I'll seek if I can find one with time to take a look. I can see why you're concerned. :/ I'll take a look at some of his uploads here and see if I can help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are wise to worry. File:Stadionul_Astra.jpg is a clear copy of the previously published image here. I bet there are others. Looking further. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

cp page
After some thoughts, I've created a mock-up template for the daily CP listing page which Zorglbot could then subst. It is at User:MLauba/cppage and a preview is at User:MLauba/Sandbox2. Comments? Feedback? Train? MLauba (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Presuming all the coding works (your example looks like it does, but I'm very timid about such things :D) I think it looks great. I particularly like the link to the SCV page. I have been considering that we should suggest that the daily listing not be archived at CP before the admin closing the day checks to ensure that a listing was not removed out of process. I've caught a couple of copyvios because their makers removed the articles themselves. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great! The design we have now is a bit messy so I like the fact that you made the text smaller.  The left orium  15:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Moved to template space at Template:Cppage, semi-protected. MLauba (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Another day, another OTRS query
How long should I wait until I volunteer there? :)

Anyway, looking for permission for Teacher Plus (Magazine), otherwise there's new text added to the temporary subpage (plus, CP is already clear today, so you guys need things to do :) ) MLauba (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I'm not sure what the OTRS admins look for in a candidate, but I know your being multilingual is a very good thing. (Do you speak Bulgarian by any chance?, she asked, hopefully.) I'll go look for it. CP being already clear today is a great thing for me, as I've got "off-sites" three days this week, including today. :) Fortunately (?), this means I never need be bored. (I remember when never needing to be bored meant writing articles. Oh, I miss those days.:/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to use the temp version. There's no usable assertion of permission in the email (2009102310012471), and rather than seek it the agent addressing the letter advised the contributor to write from fresh. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done after slashing through it quite a bit. I'm skeptical this will last another week but at least it's clean from our side now. Thanks for checking. MLauba (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for Bulgarian, I don't speak it but one of my brothers does. Does that count? Otherwise, if the sender is over 30 years old, you could ask if he could send it in Russian and find a volunteer who speaks English and Russian ofc that's probably just shifting the problem around but hey... :D MLauba (talk) 14:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would one of your brothers consider volunteering for OTRS? We evidently could really use more agents who speak Bulgarian. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

If an editor keeps reverting your edits, what do you do?
See University College of Bahrain.  The left orium  19:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You do this :). I've semi-protected the article for a week. – Toon 19:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So I just request protection at WP:RFPP if this happens again?  The left orium  20:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember to pass out a uw-copyright or two when this happens. :) Restoring copyrighted text to publication is as bad as putting it here in the first place, and persisting in copyright infringement after warning is a blockable offense. Any time you need a page protected for this reason, I'm sure you can come to a copyright admin. Sometimes RFPP is backlogged, and this need is rather urgent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, blocks are more appropriate if there's one account or IP making the edits and naturally they need to be warned first. One of us copyright caballists is probably a good option, given that copyright violators are probably outside of WP:AIV's remit. – Toon 20:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Repeated copyright violations are a form of WP:VANDALISM. My own experience has been that reporting repeated copyright violations to WP:AIV results in a block. -- Whpq (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My own experience is that ANI is worthless for this, however. So AIV, or cut out the middleman and report it here. :) MLauba (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipilipinas
has imported dozens of articles from Wikipilipinas, a source that is licensed GFDL-only. I've started deleting the most recent imports but a thorough check of all content added since November 1st, 2008, is unfortunately necessary. MLauba (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All right. Once I'm fully into things (it's pretty early here), I'll pick up back at November 1, 2008, and we can work towards each other. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk)
 * If you just heard a *plop*, it was the sound of a can of worms that opened up., same thing. I'm starting to suspect that many articles from the Philipines might be in a similar situation. MLauba (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Suppose we should try to involve the project in clean-up? If you leave them a note, it will at least help to stop future vios of this sort. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. MLauba (talk) 11:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: left a note here. Hope it didn't sound too grim or something. MLauba (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it sounds too grim. I've created a temporary template for the talk pages of blanked articles at User:Moonriddengirl/temp. You can place it by placing, replacing date with the date when the text was added (could not make the URL parameter work, so I gave it up.) See it in action at . The first step, obviously, is to check when the material was added. :) The first copied content I found at Marcelo H. del Pilar was already there on 1 November 2008. I just have to make sure material added subsequently was appropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Further complicating things, theirs is a copy from us. Whee! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, I noticed. Nice silkworms, isn't it? :) MLauba (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (Update) - added that case to the list of things to do on the project's page. MLauba (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

←Oh, yes, and, of course, there will also be infringement from other sources. For instance, I found text from which was not in the article at the time of the archive. Sometimes, I hate this job. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which pretty much supports my point - we absolutely need Flagged Protection / Patrolled Revisions, and a CSB II that scans newly patrolled revisions to start cracking on those vios introduced later on. MLauba (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * At this rate, I'm not making it very far. I've been working on Marcelo H. del Pilar for literally hours now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, that was not typical of this. Things are moving much more quickly now. Also, the worm can you've just opened has a bit less species variety than it might have, considering that is a sock of . :) So is . I've blocked the socks, but not the master, because I doubt this was intentional violation of sock puppetry policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's still the IPs... and some other things I've uncovered. The nuclear option starts to appear tempting... almost. MLauba (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

←After all that time, I've blocked the main account as well--not for socking, but for copyio. As recently as October 3, he copied content from a clearly reserved website. No plausible misunderstanding here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I've completed the review of Jakosalem. I'll look into his socks now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And done. I've covered all named accounts, but somebody else is going to have to get the IPs if IP checking is to be done. And another Wiki day, burned up by a brand new copyright fire. I'll try to peak at CP later, if no one else has gotten to it today. *(You know, it is such fun to say that. Was a time, there was no mystery in that question. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I left Mrs. Homolka to your expert eyes ;) MLauba (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

<- Oh yeah, we probably need a new template modeled on GFDLSource, probably GFDLlegacy or something, reworded to make sure we distinguish article content added before November 1, 2008. Possibly a GFDLexempt for talk pages to get along with it. Thoughts? MLauba (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I like. :) (I'm glad I can edit this page, she said, obliquely.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to thank you guys for looking into this. The Philippine WikiProject is unfortunately short on people to police these sorts of things. This is complicated by the fact that WikiPilipinas did not use the CC-migration clause of the GFDL 1.3, and the fact that many of their articles were originally copied from Wikipedia. It's also possible that the same contributor added the same text in both WikiPilipinas and Wikipedia and I think that is allowed since he is the copyright holder of those additions. --seav (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Commons admins
For the record, I've recently been made a Commons admin, so feel free to poke me if images on Commons show up as copyvios etc. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, and so noted! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers, and congratulations. MLauba (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Multi-page pure-summarystyle compilations
Are articles, like Credulity, that are created as purely summary-style extracts, a common/recommended occurrence? I believe I've seen a few others (will try to track down).

What is the preferred method for tagging these (assuming they should exist) ?
 * 1) add a single dummy edit with a long editsummary
 * 2) add multiple dummy edits with a single page-reference for each
 * 3) add multiple Copied tags to the talkpage

Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * More common than it should be but not, thankfully, as common as it could be. :/ I haven't addressed enough of these to come up with a standard approach. Generally speaking, I like to add attribution in the edit summary, but that's not always feasible, and it's acceptable to leave an edit summary that says something like "see talk page for attribution"...and then attribute there. I'd probably do that, providing a link to each article that has been utilized. Even though Copying within Wikipedia hasn't fully promoted yet, I'd also give the creator a uw-copying. So far it has unanimous support, and it's all backed up by WP:C. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's guideline now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could I delegate that to you (or someone)? I seem to be having a conflict with the editor who started that article. (The 4 copied sections are obviously taken from the leads of the articles linked with main. The lead was originally copied from credulity but has been expanded since.) Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm on very limited Wiki-time this evening, but I'll add it to my to-do list, priority. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Unattributed user subpages
What should be done with unattributed user subpages where material has been copied from an article? The specific page that raised this concern for me is User:Abhijeetrana5665/Saini,Shakya,Mourya,Kushwaha which is a copy of Sagara_(Vedic_king). -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The brand spanking new guideline Copying within Wikipedia suggests, "If a user wishes to copy all or part of an article to work on in userspace, he or she should use an edit summary like ." You might attribute it for him and leave a Uw-copying. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent. And now for my dumb how-to question.  How do I get the revision number?  Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You click on a permanent link. For instance, if you wanted the revision number of the current, you'd go into history and click on the latest. You get a link that looks like . The revision number is the stuff after oldid=. There may be an easier way to do this, but this is how I do it. :D (I think revision number is optional, myself. I may give the date but generally just link.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Left menu column, under "toolbox", there's an option called "permanent link". Right-click, copy shortcut as, then paste it and remove everything but the final number. Same thing but saves you a click through history. :) MLauba (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. That's my tidbit of new knowledge for the day. -- Whpq (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tomorrow's the 21st...
What are we going to do with the Mdd self-reports? MLauba (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go see what he's up to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * His contribution history shows he's still busily working on them. Should we relist them for another week? I hate to keep pushing back copyright problems, but these are a slightly special case, since the content is licensed, just not properly attributed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can give you the following update: I so far checked about 380 of the 700 articles listed (and took action where needed), and of the 320 yet to go I allready checked about 200 to 250 in the first week and took some action. I was planning to finish (those 320) end of next week. If you have additional instructions, please let me know? -- Mdd (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe one more thing. I allready removed the biggest part of not properly attributed material in the first week, and now I am doing a 100% check and repair of the remains, which is more time-consuming. I am not that experienced in repairing (yet), but I am trying to speed-up. -- Mdd (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Just to clarify, what we're talking about here is specifically this series of articles, which you've properly tagged as potentially problematic for licensing reasons. We have been collecting them under one date, since they are automatically listed for administrator closure, and the date that they are coming up is tomorrow (listings remain for seven + one days). What I am suggesting is that we consider relisting them again, which would another week to the deadline, since you are still working on the main body of cleanup. I understand that this can be very time consuming. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't aware of that deadline. If you give me an other week I will have those 20, and I hope all of those 320 article, (double)-checked. All possible copy-vio will be removed or repaired. Afterwards I will take more time to get those removed texts repaired, and reintroduced in the articles. At least that is the plan. I guess in a week or so I will leave it up to you to doublecheck my corrections...!? -- Mdd (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good plan to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I checked all 22 items listed on the Copyright problems/2009 October 28 listing, and I am going to continu (double)-checking the rest of my work. -- Mdd (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice work, cheers! MLauba (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Back to my update: It's about a week later and I have not been able to speed-up the process. I have checked an other 160 articles and I guess I need an other week or so to check the rest (also about 160 article), if this is ok with you? -- Mdd (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some more: On the one hand most of those last 160 I allready checked and I took most of the action needed. Double cheking this work, and correcting possible other smaller items can be quite complicated. I will do what I can and let you know when I am finished. -- Mdd (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. I finished checking the list. -- Mdd (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a note at the cleanup list talk page, see here. Could some of you take a look and give some feedback. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for missing your note here! I'll come take a look as soon as I can after I finish today's CP listings. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyrightable?
I haven't looked closely at this one, as I'm trying to knock out a WP:CCI listing, but on the CP listings for the 12th we have this article. Evidently, Intel claims copyright on the instruction set. A contributor to the talk page says that instruction sets are not copyrightable. Additional input requested, particularly as the only thing that sends me scurrying away faster than the subject of football is the subject of technology. :) Please add input you can offer at the WT:CP listing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Intel 8051 ([ history] · [ last edit])

Question on non-free content
A question has been raised whether a quote used in Economy of Gibraltar is extensive enough to constitute a copyvio. (It doesn't currently meet WP:NFC because of formatting, but that would be easily repaired if it is not extensive.) See Copyright problems/2009 November 18 and also User talk:Moonriddengirl. Please feel free to opine. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hooray for Turkey!


As I'm about to leave my computer, I note that this is definitely the day where the lowest entries have been listed on SCV since I joined COPYCLEAN.

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone! :) MLauba (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, all the Americans are participating in their strange turkey-worship ceremony today, this explains a lot! Happy Thanksgiving to all Copycleaners on that side of the pond. :) – Toon 16:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Turkish State Railways
See Turkish State Railways and User talk:151.57.171.197

Hello, can someone help with this - it's only a minor thing. I removed some stuff that looked like it had been copied, however User talk:151.57.205.197 kept adding it back - I've tried to tell them but they don't seem to appreciate that it wasn't neccessarily a good idea. (the editor just reverts). Now their IP has changed slightly and reverts again (they've agnowledged it's the same person that's not an issue).

The problem is that they keep readding the same stuff with some copyright issues. They don't make attempt to reference it etc. I don't want to get involved in an uncivilised revert war with them, and would appreciate it if someone could explain to them why and how it's not a good idea to not reference stuff, and add stuff that looks like it has been copied (in part) from another website.

The details can be found on the articles talk page and at User talk:151.57.171.197. Thanks.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(I found the info was originally added by User talk:Mtyilmaz (compare http://www.tcdd.gov.tr/tcdding/tarihce_ing.htm) and have left them a message about it.) The content has change a bit since but still has issues.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the main issue is that User.151... keeps reverting but does not try to address the copyright issues I have raised.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Ballymacoll Stud
Would someone more au fait have a look at Ballymacoll Stud, especially the external link claim which contradicts the website copyright notice making most of the article a simple copy/paste job to me. TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Permission to use the text was sent in to OTRS as ticket, Moonriddengirl processed it and tagged the talk page as such. Best, – Toon 16:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Duh! I suppose if I had bothered to review the talk page I would have seen that. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

List articles, take 2,750
Hi. There is a question about university rankings at Wikipedia talk:CP. More feedback would be very much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Template Copyviocore needs to be more user friendly
As a teacher who uses Wikipedia, I've had my share of students with copyvio problems on Wikipedia; I also have the opportunity to grill them a little more for answers and see the aftermath than we are usually able to do. One of my primary conclusions is that that Copyviocore is way to unfriendly (scary) to newbies; many students are apparently not able to understand its purpose, they find explanations on it too confusing, and simply give up on editing the article altogether. In particular: 1) they don't realize that their content is still in the article, hidden from public view but available in edit mode and 2) they don't realize they should create a temporary subpage and work on the article there - they just wait "for something to happen". Now, I know that our current template has applicable explanations and advice - but it also suffers from information overload and from having confusing code at the beginning, demotivating people from reading further. Looking at the template in action at Food power, I have the following recommendations: In any case, I was asked recently if based on my experiences I can suggest improvement to the COPYVIO procedure. The above is it (make it simple and friendly, not complex and scary). That is, assuming we want editors to learn from their mistakes and fix the problems themselves - the current approach is great for scaring them away (and yes, I understand we may want to scare serious plagarists away, but we can do it with a warning template on their page in case of a repeated violations, right?). Let's start by assuming good faith (and also by not assuming every editor who commits a copyvio is a lawyer with wiki-syntax expertise). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * move the code "If you have just labeled this page as a possible copyright infringement, please add the following to the bottom of..." to the very bottom of the template. It is for advanced users only, and it is very confusing to newbies.
 * the "The previous content of this page appears to infringe on the copyright of the text from the source(s) below" should be improved by getting read of raw html (which newbies also find scary). I'd suggest formatting as follows: source 1, source 2, source 3. If you want to include full text there, make it optional via an expandable template (a version of hidden should do the trick, just change "show" into "click to show full URLs")
 * "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue.". Right. But newbies often take it as "don't click edit button", and they are not good with history buttons, so in essence they are locked out of the article (and thus they cannot get the content and to rewrite it - they have to start from scratch). I'd suggest removing this, or replacing this with "do not remove this template until an administrator has resolved the issue; if you want to edit the article, please do it on the temporary subpage."
 * "To write a new article without infringing material, follow this link to create a temporary subpage". Fine, but to make it easy on newbies, the temporary subpage should already have the text of the article - forcing them to copy it from the edit mode, or from edit history, is confusing them.
 * The "advice" that follows is complicated and confusing. I'd keep it simple: "rewrite the copyvio content using your own words", link helpful policies such as Copy-paste, Quotations, Close paraphrasing, a guide from Purdue University.
 * "If you hold the copyright to this text and permit its use under the terms" - oh my, have mercy. First, make 99% of this hidden as above (as it deoesn't apply to majority of cases), and really, the legalise like "unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts" is a perfect illustration of how to make templates to confuse people and scare the newbies (experienced editors know to ignore such crap, but new ones are just left scratching their heads - if they got that far through that mess, anyway).
 * The most useful part is, of course, at the very bottom of the template. Sigh.


 * Hi. A few issues to consider:
 * the copyvio template is not only applied by advanced users, but quite frequently by relative newcomers, including sometimes IP contributors. For example, see, whose listing I processed today. The instructions need to be accessible for the taggers to use as well. It is particularly important to keep the request to notify visible, since shirking that can prevent contributors from having an opportunity to address the issue, including by verifying permission.
 * I believe that the raw code is used to allow the automatically generated templates for placing at CP and on user talk pages to work. I can ask if these can be altered. OTOH, maybe you already know: can you input data into a template such that it can be hidden but will still generate full information for CP and user talk?
 * I'd be fine with altering the language about not editing the page, especially as the template used to be used solely to blank entire content. But we would need to make clear that the text cannot be removed from underneath the template and republished, as I've seen that done more than once.
 * IMO, putting the text into the temporary subpage is not a good idea for two reasons. First, we can't place copyright violations on any space in Wikipedia, including temporary subpages. Our publication of that material is against the law, and once its been identified our continued publication could create a problem for the project. Second, the kind of revision that reproducing the text into the temporary subpage is likely to lead to is not acceptable. While more experienced writers may understand that close paraphrasing creates derivative works, others are likely to run into issues such as those I explained to your student yesterday. This is why the template says, "it is best to write the article from scratch." Having the text already in the temporary page is more likely to lead to the kind of minimal alterations that waste everybody's time.
 * You say, "The "advice" that follows is complicated and confusing. I'd keep it simple: "rewrite the copyvio content using your own words", link helpful policies such as Copy-paste, Quotations, Close paraphrasing, a guide from Purdue University." Not a single one of those is a policy. :) There's three essays and an external link. While I think they are all very helpful myself, I don't think we should be incorporating them into this particular template, given the gravity of it. I'm open to discussing more succinct ways to include the advice, but I believe that any links should be to actual policies.
 * The template was created primarily to give information about how to license the text, since WP:CSD is usable on straight pastes with no assertion of permission and reversion to last clean is encouraged under policy for later introductions. I think we need to be sure to keep that information viewable. Hiding it would not bother me if it is technically feasible, with a clear "click here for more information".
 * "The most useful part is, of course, at the very bottom of the template. Sigh." True enough, but it's not the most immediately useful, I think. By the time they get to us, they've unfortunately already ignored that information multiple times. As you know, the bottom of every edit screen says "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted."; " All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." and "Please do not copy and paste from copyrighted websites – only public domain resources can be copied without permission." :/ I believe what people encountering that template need to know is what to do now. I don't think delaying that information would be a good idea.
 * You say, "I understand we may want to scare serious plagarists away, but we can do it with a warning template on their page in case of a repeated violations, right?" First, what we need to keep in mind is that we're not talking about plagiarism here. We're talking about copyright violation. This isn't a moral matter, but a legal issue that could conceivably result in Wikipedia's being sued or shut down. We give a warning on first offense. It has nothing to do with assuming bad faith. Something else to remember is that the template on the article operates in conjunction with the warning that it generates. It isn't a matter that we throw this at contributors who introduced copyrighted text and nothing else. They also receive Nothanks-web, which while including the necessary block caution begins with the very friendly words, "Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree it's scary, as an aside "Template:Copyrighted" which is for possible copyright problems still looks like a death ransom note. I don't really know what the solution is - I suggest one - the information bit at the bottom could be the bit that shows, with a link to a user-friendly page explaining what to do to solve or resolve the problem. The other issue I have is that it's far to big especially when used on sections of articles.
 * I've made an attempt at a shorter message - I haven't addressed the "getting content licensed issue" - I think that could be dealt with inside the "HELPFUL AND USEFUL LINK".
 * Writing that page would be the big job.
 * Here's as far as I got as to a slightly more palatable template (I still think it;s a bit loud..) minus the template specific code

Shortfatlad (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a bad idea overall, but it doesn't include instructions for use. This is essential. If the contributors who place these tags do not place the generated notice for th content contributors, the article may be deleted without their ever having a chance to address the issue. Alternatively, if an administrator is careful, it will delay processing unduly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This issue is not as straightforward as it seems. The template can also be misused. Once in the past, I had the copyvio template plastered by a notorious flame warrior over my big new article because of a few words picked up from the source unconsciously. The template (at it is now) can serve as punishment in the wrong hands because of its language, even though its purpose is to guide and inform. Most importantly though, the template works regardless what the words say, because it blanks the disputed text. --Poeticbent talk  00:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that can happen. I suspect it's rare, though. I've been one of the primary admins working WP:CP for over a year, and I very rarely see the template misused in a way that suggests intentional disruption. Occasionally, it is placed over public domain material, but I believe this is generally done in good faith. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Shortfatlad's template has the right size, and use of the green font may be something to consider (black is scary, green can suggest helpful things to do). Now, can we incorporate all that needs to be in that template without scaryfing it? Again, I'll suggest the use of hidden to add stuff that needs to be there but can be expanded if needed and doesn't have to be seen instantly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't have any problem creating a subpage for it to link to rather than collapsing. I'm certainly familiar enough with the recommended steps for handling. :) One thing that I think would need to be included on the template itself, though, is a link to the temp page. We used to have a problem with administrators deleting these temp pages, not understanding their purpose. To address this, Stifle (I think it was) created a preloading note explaining why the temp page exists. I don't know of any way to get newer contributors to put the temp page in the proper place with the necessary note at the top short of making it an easy "click here" that is able to preload the appropriate page name. Also, admins who address CP listings need to be able to see that the temp page has been created. Contributors are instructed to make a note of it at the article talk, but they almost never do. The deeper blue of the temp link when it has content is the tip off. I still don't know if hidden will embed properly within the template. Do you? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have problems with template:hidden under normal circumstances - I think the separate "how and what to do" link would be easier to use(/find) for less experienced that a small show button on the right hand side.Shortfatlad (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to do a mock-up with the usage instructions and the temp page link? If we can agree on the template here, I'll write up a separate instruction page for example purpose, and we can run the proposal up the flagpole for consensus. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to try - questions
 * Instructions for use of the template - my feeling is that these should be at the top of the actual template:copyvio page - ie Summary place template on the page, (use a  for sections of text), notify editor who added it, leave message on talk page, add to listing at Copyright_problems/..date.. Finish
 * The template as it appears on tagged page - if the instructions are on the template page - then the template doesn't need to display any instructions? A link to "what to do" is needed. Is a link to the relevent Copyright_problems/..date.. page needed? or should editors settle the problem on the talk page.?
 * Temp page - is this needed? How about a link to how to use the sandbox, or just leave them to their own devices.
 * Also do you want a simple stepwise "how to resolve the problem page" writing, or are you doing it?Shortfatlad (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, we can just go with for more info, see FAQ here instead of hidden. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer specific questions: I can do a stepwise if nobody else volunteers. MLauba (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Disagree with that, since having the links for the instructions on the tagged page actually creates everything you need to both complete the reporting at WP:CP and at the concerned user's talk page. If you remove these, you run the risk that the template gets removed by the copyright violator without having a means to keep a trace of that action. If you remove the autocompleted nothanks message for user talk page, you're going to basically delay closure of every report from one week to two weeks, as we routinely relist cases where we found an active contributor has not been notified that there was a problem with his edits.
 * 2) A venue for discussing / settling the issue should be made explicit so that the copyvio admin knows where to look when he clears the issue one week later
 * 3) This is absolutely needed since the temp space is where the article can be rebuilt using non-copyrighted text. I'd say in terms of having the infringing contributor in mind, this is probably the single most important thing on the template.
 * I'm with MLauba here, but in point 2, I don't think we need a link to the date/page. It would be nice, mind you. If it can be easily done. :) As I said, I'm happy to write up a separate instruction page. I'm also very comfortable collaborating on it if somebody else wants to start it. I've got a bit of a hectic schedule today. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm getting a bit confused as to who has volunteered to do what - there are two "stepwises" I can think of:
 * 1. The stepwise instructions for adding the template, and associated stuff - already half done at Copyright_problems
 * 2. Stepwise instructions for resolving/objecting/showing you've got permission - currently in the template - but suggested for rewriting/linking to improve user friendlyness.
 * No. 2 would be easier for me to do if no one else has already volunteered
 * Also we also have Template:Copypaste which seems to have the same usage as Template:Copyvio since both cover possible copyright problems. Is Template:Copypaste surplus to requirements?
 * Here's what seems to be current consensus on what the improved template might look like Talk:Copyviocore/Temp Possibly with the link to the copyrightproblem/data page removed - note this doesn't stay on the right date. It's a bit easier on the eye, but I'm not sure if it will ever be truly user friendly
 * I was experimenting with using to see if it would be possible to get the reminder to leave messages to dissapear once the messages had been created. (function details) which would have been good, but it would require that each copyright problem had a separate section, plus the non-fixed date makes it impossible. If anyone has a clue how to get round this please say. It still might be possible to do this if it is assumed that a message section on the offending editors page has been created eg
 * but the users would need to supply the editors page name withing the page name} probably too much to ask.Shortfatlad (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Surplus to requirements? Not sure I follow that. :) Copypaste is not used that often, but it serves when the tagger is unsure which came first or if the source is copyrighted. When I said, "If we can agree on the template here, I'll write up a separate instruction page for example purpose" I meant as a target for USER FRIENDLY LINK HERE. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like Template:Copyviocore/Temp; I've made an edit moving the scary syntaxt stuff to the bottom, but leaving an instruction for the new users to read that far :D --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The alteration makes sense to me.Shortfatlad (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to Template talk:Copyviocore/Temp. I'm afraid you put it in article talk space. :) I'm fine with the pointer to the instructions. Only trial would be able to tell if it is more or less difficult for users to apply. If we begin to find a lot of people who aren't complying, restoring the former set up might be necessary. Why does it have four dividing lines? It appears a bit choppy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More feedback: I believe that the text "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it may be deleted one week after the time of its listing." is essential for inclusion on the front of the template. While sometimes articles are not deleted, they often are, and this must be clear to all who view the page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think should be used here (or a format variant) eg "..may be deleted one week after 6 December 2009' - not sure how to word it right now, or where to put the message in the template. that won't work.  might though if the template is substituted Shortfatlad (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The template is substituted, fwiw. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The template is substituted, fwiw. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

All right, so any objections to adopting the new template? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's been proposed yet at the template talk page. Plus, it does not yet incorporate the deletion warning. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * added a message - might need improving. Shortfatlad (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC) didn't work
 * Problem- can't get the date to substitute to a fixed date within the template using either method. This is the best I can do..Shortfatlad (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a note at Template_talk:Copyviocore to solicit further comments, just before you suggested it :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's timing. :) I'll test the functionality, but I believe that the deletion advisory needs to be changed back to its original: "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it may be deleted one week after the time of its listing." I believe what it says right now is even more alarming than what it used to say, and it doesn't take into account the possibility of permission, clarification, or tagger error (all of which is incorporated in the old text in "unless" and "may"). I'll go ahead today and create a target for that link. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposed template doesn't seem to blank anything. See my test at User:Moonriddengirl/merge. I still find the text very choppy, with all those lines across it. Of course, I guess what we're proposing is alteration of the original template and not replacement of it with this? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FixedShortfatlad (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Replaced message
 * Confirmed it works (using  to blank ALL CAPS text) : see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moonriddengirl/merge&oldid=330858014
 * As far as the "too many sections" - I think it's ok, but willing to change it - question which boxed sections should be merged? Shortfatlad (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to the addition of the original "Unless..." warning. It's short and simple enough to be helpful :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on CSB II for patrolled revisions
I've opened up a discussion on a potential CSB II at WT:C. Please feel free to add your input there. MLauba (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

parody material
Hello, I was wondering if parody material (which IIRC is covered under fair-use in US law) is acceptable for use outside of encyclopedic material on Wikipedia? (see a TFD and PCV for template:uw-rikrolblock)

76.66.192.35 (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * While fair use allowances are not made for images outside of article space, there's generally a wider latitude given to text. For instance, text is quoted all the time in discussion article improvements, and I have seen more than a few user pages decorate with a line or two from a song or poem. I don't know the song on which it is based, but I'd be surprised if there was enough creative content in the parody of the lyrics here to present a real problem. Now, if there were cheesy midi keyboard in the background.... :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright backlogs; trying to generate solutions
In an effort to try to come up with some solutions for massive and/or chronic backlogs on copyright issues (such as at WP:PUF, WP:SCV and WP:CCI), I've opened a discussion at Areas for Reform. Please contribute, if you have any ideas. I think there's a critical need. At this moment, WP:PUF has images that have been listed for over three months, while there are literally hundreds of articles and images still waiting review at WP:CCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting started guides
Are there any basic "getting started" guides available? I read through WP:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/How to clean copyright infringements, the front page of WP:CCI, and the Instructions section on individual cases. I didn't find any directions or tips for identifying infringement, although I assume that one plugs unique-looking text into search engines and looks for matches. Flatscan (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's essentially it. MER-C 05:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The other one to watch for is when well written text is present in an article without any references. I've yet to see copyright infringement that was well referenced...
 * Be cautious if the text matches a private website - editors often contribute their own material, but fail to reference (probably avoiding banging their own drum.)Shortfatlad (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips. Is there a page where they could go? Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

List of specific sources?
While working on WP:CP today, I stumbled on a potential reuse case, remembering a discussion held on MRG's talk page a couple of months ago. And then it struck me: wouldn't it make sense to start listing specific sources with potentially problematic reuse clauses that we have already examined in one central place?

I had in mind something akin to what WP:VG/S does, in other words, one single place where we list specific third party sites (in particular wikis) with potentially difficult licenses, give a tick or a cross depending on whether the content can be safely imported or not, and link to the discussion held elsewhere or give a short comment

EG:

Thoughts? MLauba (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. Will certainly come in handy.  The left orium  14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I'm all for it. :) We could also include perennial questions like press releases. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, went ahead and started the thing, you'll notice the new tab at the top row here :) MLauba (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree that we should mention ImageUndeleteRequest in many of the image deletion warning templates?
I think we should mention ImageUndeleteRequest in many of the image deletion warning templates. (You can see image deletion warning templates in . Most of the templates have names that start with "Di-".)  If we do what I propose, we can tell users who didn't respond to a deletion warning in time, and got their image deleted, that there is still hope. We can tell them that their image can still be undeleted so that they can now fix the problem with the image. And we can tell them how to get their image undeleted. I think this is a good idea, and it will reduce frustration for users who didn't respond to an image deletion warning in time. What do you think? Cheers, --unforgettableid | talk 21:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea to me. I didn't even know that template existed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Advice on widespread copyright violations
I have recently noticed that has admitted to copying and pasting material out of copyrighted news stories into Wikipedia (see this post on their talk page). This editor is extreamly prolific and has in recent weeks made dozens, if not hundreds, of edits to articles covering incidents in ongoing wars in which they have added new incidents (typically posting one or two sentences and a reference per incident). From my initial spot checks, it appears that a high proportion of these edits have been taken word for word from the sources provided. As the text posted in each edit is only a small proportion of the article they aren't major copyvios when taken in isolation, but the sheer number of them means that, in my assessment, they add up to a significant copyvio problem. I've indef blocked this editor while this issue is addressed (I have also indef blocked them for repeatedly violating conditions they agreed to in exchange for a previous indef block being lifted) and would appreciate advice on how to handle this matter - should all their edits be reverted, or does the limited extent of each copyvio mean that there's another solution? I should note that I've been keeping an eye on this editor in recent weeks for other reasons, but failed to notice that this was occurring. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Contributor copyright investigations might be an option. Could you give examples of edits where he has added copyright violations?  The left orium  23:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some representative samples are (made today),  (2 February) and  (also 2 February - the title of the article has been lifted in this instance) and  (7 February). From initial checking, it appears that a high proportion of this editors posts are one or two sentence copyvios. As the copyvios are blatant and appear to be caused by the editor having no understanding of copyright issues I don't think that an investigation is necessary. Nick-D (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've mass reverted this editor's contributions. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry I didn't pick up on this sooner, and thanks for cleaning up after that. :) I don't know what I was doing on the 12th, but evidently I was looking elsewhere. CCIs are generally just places where we can list contributors whose copyright violations are too numerous for one evaluator to easily handle. They provide a handy list of diffs clumped by articles, making it easier to see where a contributor has been and to quickly evaluate if a contribution needs to be removed.


 * Even an individual sentence is a violation of WP:C (since that policy requires that all non-free text imported into Wikipedia be marked in accordance with WP:NFC with quotation marks), but I'd agree that it generally wouldn't rise to the level of copyright violations. I also agree with you that small bits of text if widespread constitute a significant copyvio problem. To the extent that the Wikimedia Foundation may run into problems with contributory infringement, we are responsible for the articles in aggregate, not just individually. I will generally do just what you've done, delete them, but sometimes address by turning them into quotes if they seem otherwise appropriate under WP:NFC.


 * Many of our copyright infringers, I believe, are operating under a misunderstanding of copyright law. I see quite a few people come through WP:CP who are pasting content because their own English isn't up to the task of writing material themselves. It's unfortunate, but the impact to the project from them is the same as if they were deliberately violating the policy. No matter their reasons, people who don't follow WP:C must be stopped. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your great response. This editor's basic problem appears to be that their English-language skills are poor and they haven't been able to comprehend what's required of editors here - they're now using IP accounts to continue to post copyright protected material. Another editor has directed them towards their native language Wikipedia, where they'll hopefully move to (unless they've been banned from it as well, which seems possible given their habit of misrepresenting sources). Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It does not surprise me to read that this editor is continuing the work through anonymous (IP) editing, as the user stated the intention of doing so. However, can you quote what IP addresses have been used? JamesBWatson (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issues in new article James M. Tien
Hi staff of the copyright project, would someone be kind enough to take a look at this new article? It appears to have copyright issues as well as questionable notability. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it up, and following up at the article talk page. It looks like the article's been cleaned up since yesterday and as far as I can see, it no longer infringes on the source. I'm not, however, very familiar with the notability guidelines for academics, so wouldn't wish to pass judgement on that :) – Toon 22:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

User uploading tons of copyrighted images
Please have a look at User:Valueyou's contributions. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks like there's a problem here. I'm on it, thanks for bringing it up. – Toon 22:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, the user has admitted previously to scanning images from journals, some images are taken from the web and some are of (non-PD) artwork which need FURs. I've deleted many as F9, but there are many still remaining. I'm fried, so if anyone wants to take a look while I'm asleep, I'd be grateful. – Toon 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have some doubts about:
 * File:Nechvatal.jpg. Low-res photoshopped image (which I note is also used on the official youtube channel: . Taken in larger version from his website at one point)?
 * File:Speedtrials.jpg. Programme. Possibly his, if he is a graphic designer. Possibly not.
 * File:Saulpeter.JPG. Photo of a painting? Derivative work?
 * File:Dkuspit.jpg. Unless he is Nechvatal (which is possible), this is clearly derivative of the larger color version halfway down this page
 * File:XS_Tellus_copy.jpg. Also a problem unless he is Nechvatal.
 * PUF, possibly? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Having completed my review, this is all that really concerns me that you haven't already tagged. I'll talk to him about them. I'll tag Dkuspit for no permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm out of my depth here. Some of the images uploaded as "I created this work entirely by myself" are clearly not - File:Sareenalee.jpg from 2008; File:Colab.jpg is marked as both "I created this work entirely by myself" and permission is "peter sumner walton bellamy www.peterbellamy.com" - the user states that he gave pemission. this image is also marked as "I created this entirely myself", yet it is extremely unlikely that is so. Is there any way we can tell? Urgh, text is much simpler. – Toon 14:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We can ask an image admin. :) Those guys are precious as gold, imo. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am starting to look through. He is probably not Nechvatal as that appears to be User:Rydernechvatal based on this users name and contributions. I think that we have another user who has confused "I uploaded it" and "I edited it" with "I created the original and own the copyright"&mdash;an unfortunately common misconception&mdash;and it seems that this runs across many of their images. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Eddiesha.jpg - crop with no exif but given the image and res and the uploader's other Sony Cybershot/Mobile photos I am assuming that the licence is correct
 * File:Nechvatal.jpg - sent to PUI
 * File:Catherine Perret.jpg - dubious but possibly correct. The uploader had previously used a Cybershot and this is a well-composed image taken with a Canon 5D
 * File:BwPascalDombis.jpg - sent to PUI as this is of a Paris based artist and lacks a date/the usual exif.
 * File:Jane Lawrence Smith.jpg - sent to PUI as the claimed creation date (2010) postdates her by 5 years
 * File:RCMorgan.jpg - dubious but possibly correct. The uploader had previously used a Cybershot and this is a well-composed image taken with a Canon 20D

I've deleted a couple and tagged a couple more for deletion. Will look through the Canon images above soon Peripitus (Talk) 03:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

List article: Copyright?
Hi. A question has been raised at WT:CP about yet another list article. Determining whether these violate copyright requires determining whether human creativity is involved in the information. More input would be very much appreciated there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I hate list articles. Oh wait... MLauba (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

User Rishabhchandan
User:Rishabhchandan has continually added copyright materials to Wikipedia, both files and articles. He/she is now up to copyright violation number 9, if I have counted correctly. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not good. :/ I've started with a 72 hour block. I'll take a look to see if a CCI is necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Persistent uploading of images with questionable copyright status
I have marked four images uploaded by the same user as possibly unfree. Edson Rosa claims to have created four logos and releases them to public domain, yet the logos in question appear to have been copied or downloaded from four different company web sites. See, TOTVS-logo.gif, Brmallsbrandlogo.jpg, and LogoMultipan.jpg. The user page also includes two db-g12 warnings, fifteen license tagging problems, and nine other file copyright warnings prior to my four. That makes something like thirty copyright questions in the past year. Cnilep (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not good. :/ I think if this continues, he may be heading towards an indef-block. I've added his talk page to my watchlist, and I'll take a look at some of his text contributions in a bit to see if there are undisclosed text issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

DSM-IV-TR diagnostic
2010030910040817 just came in saying that a load of psychiatric-related pages are carrying verbatim extracts from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), which is a copyvio. I am going to work through as many as I can, but assistance from anyone else with OTRS access would be welcomed. Stifle (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Had a look at Adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder since I'm a bit familiar with that article, compared with http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/adhd.htm - potentially infringing text was introduced with [ this edit] - the classification attributed (albeit not explicitly cited), the list of symptoms sufficiently distinct that it is not even a close paraphrase. Is there a more explicit source we'd have to compare our text to? MLauba (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Only a dead-tree source, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Here's what I suggest. Let's blank any that are remaining for CP and ask for feedback from the Psychiatry wikiproject. I do not own a copy of the DSM-IV-TR (or any earlier iteration, though I've kind of always wanted to), but I'll bet some of them have access to it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've started taking action on this. :) I've opened a subsection at CP, and after tagging articles will notify the project. The writer claims that this is an ongoing problem; perhaps a template such as Plot2 would be a good idea? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Kind of a logo
File:RugMark-Foundation.jpg is being used under fair use for non-free images as a logo. The image itself is actually a photograph of a certification label from a rug and is not solely of the logo, as it can be seen to carry the cerification number. As can be seen from the file File:RugMark-Inspector.jpg, the uploader has attributed the sources as "Romano". This web page credits the photograph to "Robin Romano".

So after that preamble, my question is, "Does this image fit the criteria for non0-free image use on Wikipedia?". My concern is that this is a photograph of more than just the logo. -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question! I've asked J Milburn if he can help out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact it is a photo photo could have a number of effects- in this case, it's not a big deal, I don't think. However, I feel that it is bad form to use a photo of a label rather than a graphic of the logo itself, so I have uploaded an alternative and added a fair use rationale. It will probably not look right initially, but that's a problem with the way images are uploaded... It will hopefully fix soon. (As an aside, the other image is completely unwarranted, and I have removed it.) J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Forbes' rich people
More feedback much needed at Talk:List of billionaires to help determine the degree of creativity in Forbes' listing for billionaires. Please weigh in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a unique case; I've left my thoughts. Shell  babelfish 21:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Shell! And for your recent spate of copyright activity. Downright cheering to see people pitching in. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Wide-scale copyright violation issue
See Administrators' noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Woncheuk
Hi, I just noticed you deleted Woncheuk Ticket:2010022610013647, please note I typed this article and can assure that there was no copyright violation. If it was mirrored on another site and has been deleted as a result that is a farce. I am not pleased that my hard work that has been duly cited is being deleted and would like it investigated further please and reinstated. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 11:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. While you contributed to the article, you did not create it; it was created on 11 August 2003 by User:Acmuller. The Wikimedia Foundation received a complaint from the copyright holder. There can be no question that it was a mirror of Wikipedia, as at the time the article was created in 2003 it actually cited the page it copied as a source. While you built onto the article, at the time it was tagged for copyright problems and at the time it was deleted it retained all of the language from that original edit. This constituted an unauthorized derivative work, I'm afraid. There had never been a version of the article that did not contain this copyrighted text. You would be welcome to create a new article on the subject, and I would be happy to retrieve for you the text that you had contributed, but the article cannot be restored unless we receive permission for the foundational material. Given that the website owner personally wrote us to complain about the usage, this seems unlikely. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of Revision Deletion with copyright cleanup work
Hey,

Just wanted to open a discussion on using WP:REVDEL that was just activated vs. move + selective deletion for copyvio work (for the admins among us of course, but the viewpoints of everyone would be welcome) so that we have a consistent practice on the matter. MLauba (Talk) 16:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I always (when possible) deleted revisions when handling copyvio's. This just makes it much easier. Garion96 (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:Administrators' noticeboard, only one revision should be deleted at a time, due to outstanding technical issues. My suggestion is to do whatever is easiest, considering the number of revisions that must be deleted. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive213. I've seen a log entry that lists 2 revisions at once, so it seems that the update has been deployed. I'm not sure how much testing has been done. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think what I'm aiming for is to establish a common best practice and then stick to it. The good thing about RevDel is that even if the article gets deleted but later restored (eg. at DRV), hidden revisions stay hidden. The major reason to use move + selective deletion was containment, to ensure that clearly excisable history would not be restored by accident in a later full delete / restore scenario.

In terms of practice, here's what I'm tending to do:


 * If the article is directly revertable to a non-infringing version, revdel hiding text, contrib and comment


 * If content work has been done by others in the article including infringement, excise, then revdel hiding text only, keeping the attribution chain visible and intact.

Thoughts? MLauba (Talk) 10:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine to me. Leaving the usernames visible is a huge advantage. I think that some users advocate that the bare minimum – revision text only in this case – should be hidden when using RevDel. Hiding the user may make it more difficult to see if a user has multiple edits RevDel'd for copyright violations. If examples would be helpful, here are two removals that I did recently:
 * Over 20 affected revisions
 * Single revision, immediately reverted
 * Flatscan (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Another bot for the project?
I am interested in creating a bot to help with some of the clerical work involved with copyright cleanup. I have submitted a proposal at Bots/Requests for approval/VWBot and would appreciate any input the rest of you have. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Could tracking be added to its tasks, or do you prefer to concentrate on the tasks already listed? Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd really like it to take over all of the the clerical tasks that don't involve any human judgment so that us mere humans can spend more time evaluating and rewriting, so I'm open to any further suggestions. I'm sure it could track the uses of copied, but what would it do with it? I'm not aware of anything that we do to follow up on the placement of that tag. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * COPYCLEAN doesn't do any follow-up, as far as I know, so adding this task would add to your workload. I'm most concerned with the removal of valid tags, as users seem to remove them in good faith once the copied text has been removed (but not deleted). Flagging instances with invalid parameters – some users copy the examples directly – would also be nice. Neither of these can be done with categories. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the state of WP:CCI and even the present backlog of the daily WP:CP pages since a few admins are away, I'm not sure we need the extra workload. That said, it does sound like something that ought to be done, but I think for right now I want to focus on things that we already do, and lighten the workload first. I will keep your idea in mind and look into it later, but not until I have something actually up and running. Any other ideas of things it could do or feedback on the ideas already in my proposal? VernoWhitney (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take this to Template talk:Copied. It seems like your proposal is well-received. Flatscan (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot thoughts
Copying the list by VernoWhitney from Bots/Requests for approval/VWBot: Function details: I am interested in automating a decent variety of tasks focused on helping out with the copyright area, but they are all relatively minor:
 * 1) transclude new pages created by CorenSearchBot to WP:SCV
 * 2) add adminbacklog and backlog tags to WP:CP and WP:SCV respectively if/when they get backed up
 * 3) act as a backup for DumbBOT and Zorglbot for their tasks at WP:CP if/when they are down (this involves moving transclusions and loading new daily pages)
 * 4) notify authors that their pages have been blanked (by {{subst:copyvio}}) in case they aren't notified by the taggers, so that the pages don't get relisted for an extra week without any action being taken on them
 * 5) add pages newly tagged with close paraphrase to the appropriate daily page at WP:CP

I'm all for it. We need #1 daily and #3 routinely. In fact, I had previously requested a replacement for Zorglbot given how routinely it goes down and how difficult it is to get assistance when it does or when modifications are needed. (See, for instance, the Bot Owners' noticeboard note and this Bot Request.) I don't care about whatever politics may be involved here; Zorglbot is great for what it does when it works. If we had a back-up for when it does not work, the fact that Schutz disappears and sometimes does not respond to notes even when left at his home French Wikipedia would not be an issue for me anymore (so far as I know, I've still not received a response to this 10/31/09 note despite repeated follow-up on my part; I did eventually stop watching, though).

I have no great opinion on the usefulness of the backlog tags. CCI has been marked backlogged since man first discovered fire, but perhaps people are just too intimidated by that board for it to matter. :) If the tags are useful, automating them seems like a fine thing to me.

Notification is nice, if the technical issues with that can be worked out. And while I am loathe to deal with close paraphrasing tags, somebody needs to evaluate these to make sure that they are not in fact copyright problems that need admin attention. I would support this if we can then create a "close paraphrase" template for articles that have been reviewed and may still need rewriting but that are not copyright problems (for example, when the text is public domain). Otherwise, we'd have to falsely remove the tag or rewrite it ourselves, and I have enough copyvio issues to deal with without taking on plagiarism, too.

Regarding Flatscan's points, I think these should be considered for some kind of future implementation. We need to figure out how to process them first, though. (For instance, if the copied template is removed, perhaps we could create a subpage for the project that lists articles from which the template has been removed to be checked through?) I'd suggest we deal with the proposed uses already on the table and, if it is approved and written, consider expanding in that direction once it is functional and any kinks ironed out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you approve. Now, in response to your points: I'll admit that I'm also hesitant to believe that the backlog tags actually help (especially given the lack of general admin response even for copyright issues that reach ANI), but it's a trivial little task, so I'm choosing to remain optimistic that at some point in the future it will be useful. Once I get Zorglbot's functionality duplicated for a backup, maybe we can just retire it (for its work in the text copyvio area at least) and then make whatever adjustments to the existing process (I haven't actually read your proposal yet).


 * I won't really know how difficult the technical issues are for notifications of copyvio blanking are until I start writing that part, but it seems doable, and I seem to see about one case a week get relisted due to lack of notification.


 * As far as close paraphrasing, I've been working on the backlog off and on since late March, but 2-3 new ones get tagged every week, so there are still around ~100 articles just like when I started that haven't been checked since most of the copyvio time still goes to the more obvious daily CP and SCV entries. I also figured that since both you and Toon05 thought it was supposed to be done automatically it would be a good idea. As far as tagging articles which need a further rewrite after copyright issues are ruled out, there's probably something at Template_messages/Cleanup that would work.


 * I completely agree about expanding the functions once these initial ideas are working (or shot down for one reason or another), and I have a few of my own ideas for further details, but I started with the ones that seemed to me like the most immediately useful for things we already do by hand (or really should be doing in the case of close paraphrases). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Single sentence copy paste
I've become aware of User:Raghavsuryadevs contributions. see User_talk:Raghavsuryadev.

They've only a limited number of contributions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Raghavsuryadev and many are not copyright problems.

Is it ok to ask and expect this user to fix there own copyright violations as I've asked them to? (I've left them a list) 83.100.183.63 (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. --Moonriddengirl (talk)

How much plot summary is too much?
Please see WT:C thread. Feedback on that question would be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

New Essay for wider input: Text Copyright Violations 101
Hello,

A (hopefully) simplified "Text Copyvio 101" handling guideline has been drafted by a bunch of us and awaits your comments at User:MLauba/Cv101 with the intention of moving it to WP space. Thanks. MLauba (Talk) 13:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

New York State Historical Markers
Hi, folks. I was hoping you guys could help out with this conundrum. None of the other places on-wiki to report potential problems seemed appropriate for this type of problem.

Background: List of New York State Historic Markers includes sub-articles for most of New York's 62 counties. Each of those sub-articles (like List of New York State Historic Markers in Albany County, New York) includes the full text of each historical marker. (All of this information was imported from the state web site, http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/historicmarkers/ ) Now, aside from the obvious problem that the state's list is woefully incomplete, the real problem is that the copyright status of these texts is unknown.

List of New York State Historic Markers in Cortland County, New York was deleted after a discussion at Copyright problems/2009 May 17. Personally, I think the copyright issue should have been solved by deleting the text and retaining the titles, dates, and locations (which are non-copyrightable facts), but I wasn't involved with the discussion. But although the Cortland County list was deleted, none of the other county lists were ever addressed. (Note: I believe the talk page for the Cortland County list contained several threads of discussion on this topic, but it was speedy deleted as the talk page of a deleted page.)

So, we're left with several questions: Is it possible to determine that at least some of these historical markers are in the public domain (due to lapsed copyright, most likely)? If so, which ones? Can the Cortland County list be restored by removing the potentially offending text? Should all of the other county articles be deleted, or purged of the marker text, or left as-is?

Thanks for your time and support. As a relative novice with copyright issues, I have a great respect for the hard work you all put into these often-intractible issues.

-- Powers T 13:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a nice table at File:PD-US table.svg, and we're looking for ones that fit in the top row so that they're public domain. Presumably they are published without copyright notices and not later registered, though that should be checked, so it is likely that the text of all markers erected ("published") before March 1st, 1989 are PD. Anything later than that is still in copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is determining it, though. :/ (Most of the conversation was held here.) We waited over two months for word to come back from New York on this issue, and evidently it never did. User:LtPowers, the article could have been recreated with those elements, but in the 10 weeks or so it was blanked nobody ever made an effort to salvage the content or suggested doing so. If you'd like, I'll be happy to salvage that now, as it's never too late, but ideally I'd like to be sure that the content can't be cleared of copyright concerns first. It's a good sight easier to restore the entire article than to piecemeal resurrect the non-creative bits. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, so it's still possible that the material is PD, it's just difficult to confirm since New York isn't cooperating. Sad. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's kind of a pickle, and accordingly everybody sort of just whistled nonchalantly and walked away. The one in question was deleted primarily because it alone had been tagged. It's one thing not to know if content represents a copyright concern. Taking no action on content is not endorsing it and should not represent any kind of additional liability for the project or other contributors than the original. It's another thing to remove a copyright tag from a blanked article. In the latter case, the individual who makes that judgment stands to join the individual who placed it in jeopardy if copyright protection exists and the copyright is prosecuted. (Which doesn't mean I endorse taking no action if you strongly suspect copyright problems. In that case, we're not only protecting the project, but our content reusers and the copyright holders themselves. When I doubt, I usually rewrite just to be safe. But in this case, rewriting just to be safe is not particularly an option; it's either have it or no.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we also have scope issues here; IMO, this is edging dangerously close to indiscriminate information, and coupled with the copyright concerns I would think that pushes it over the edge into content we don't need or want. The raw data on locations and titles and whatnot could be encyclopedic even without the text, but the incompleteness of the available listings is also problematic.  Powers T 15:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't blame the state. Historical markers are not strongly regulated, and the state basically puts one up wherever someone says they want one.  They don't keep good records of these requests, either, resulting in the ridiculously incomplete database on the web.  One could say they should, but when the program was begun I doubt anyone thought there'd be interest in collecting all of the markers in one place!  It's also important to point out that the text in most cases wasn't written by an official representative of the state, but by private citizens, so verification that the text is unprotected by copyright is not something the state can really provide. Powers T 15:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's well beyond what I knew about historical markers. I appreciate the info. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

PC David Rathband
Hi, I'd like to upload these images of PC David Rathband to illustrate the 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt article. They were reportedly issued by Northumbria Police "At his request we are releasing a photograph of his injuries before he received treatment. He has agreed to the release of this photos on the basis the media respect the express wishes of his family not to be approached or identified." Is there a reasonable justification for either fair use or PD? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You should probably ask this at Media copyright questions. Theleftorium (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Change to copyvio process
Several people have noted over the years that the autoblanking is not ideal and the most recent conversation about it is pretty clear, even for not-technophile me (see Template talk:Copyviocore). Accordingly, I've altered the instructions to again require removal of the text as was once done in order to better protect the project, our users and copyright holders. I haven't removed the "auto-hide" function because it will take a while for this to catch on, and better safe than sorry. If you want to discuss it, how about doing so at Template talk:Copyviocore? Seems like a solid location. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

One Thousand Children
Hi

I have just deleted material from the article talk page Talk:One Thousand Children as it appears to have been a little bit of a copyvio.

Can someone calrify whether or not the article One Thousand Children is ok or is infact a copyvio also?

Most of the material appears to be from the site onethousandchildren.org and in particular the material seems to be taken from the document "STORY OF THE ONE THOUSAND CHILDREN AND THE “NETWORK OF COOPERATION” THAT SAVED THEM" (in word but also has html page)

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark Siegel
I have a bit of an oddball problem. Mark Siegel is currently listed for deletion at AFD, [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Siegel]. The "Mark Siegel" that is the current subject is not likely to meet the WP:GNG, and ordinarily that would result in a an article deletion. However, this version of the article existed before it got overwritten, and the "Mark Siegel" that is the subject of the older version likely meets our notability criteria. The current version of the article is a copy of the bio from here. Does this need an admin to fix the history or reversion sufficient, assuming the current Mark Siegel is found to be non-notable? Thanks. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Article history split and disambiguated, left note at AfD, dealing with copyvio issues in a moment. MLauba (Talk) 09:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! -- Whpq (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)