![]() | This help page is a
how-to guide. It details processes or procedures of some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms and practices. It is not one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of
consensus and
vetting. |
This is a guide for clerks working through Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The main WP:CP page has a link to each day's daily log page. The 'edit' link for the daily log page can be reached from the main WP:CP page.
It is important to thoroughly investigate each article before removing any copyvio-related tags and/or text. The investigation process includes evaluating the article and source and, if copyrighted text has been used, ensuring that proper permission to use the text has been granted. For listings at the copyright problems board, there may be relevant comments from other editors at the board itself or on the talk page; remember to check for these.
Sometimes articles are tagged with {{ copyvio}} without a source being named. Frequently, articles tagged for {{ Close paraphrasing}} or {{ Copy-paste}} do not identify their sources. If the source is not obvious, a simple Google search or a run-through with Earwig's Copyvio Detector can help. Check the article's history as well, the text may have been removed by another editor. Otherwise, handling depends on which tag it is.
{{
CPC|un}}
.If a source is located, you can proceed with evaluating the issue.
At each stage, an answer of "yes" or "maybe" to the core question indicates a need to continue. An answer of "no" does not. If a copyright problem cannot be substantiated, you should communicate your findings at the article's talk page to help avoid future mistaggings.
{{
CPC|ba}}
.When a contributor gives credible claim of permission or ownership, they should be given notice of how to proceed under Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials or Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and permitted time to verify before an article is deleted. This is less common than other types of listing and infringement. Seven days is commonly allowed, and the article remains templated while awaiting verification. It may be appropriate, but generally discouraged, to revert to the last clean version in history while awaiting verification if the text was introduced recently.
To see if permission is asserted, check the talk page, edit summaries, and the user talk page of the contributor who added the text. Sometimes new editors are unsure where to claim permission and could state their claim in unlikely places. You may choose to operate as though a credible claim of permission has been asserted if the contributor's username suggests an affiliation with the suspected source. If a contributor has asserted permission but was not notified of the process for verification at least five days ago, relist under an appropriate date to extend that deadline. If the contributor was not notified how to verify at all, remedy that and relist under today's date.
Some common sense is necessary here. The "copyright problem" template that blanks an article's face itself provides instruction for verification. If a contributor has been routinely contributing to the talk page of a blanked article, they may be presumed to have seen the template and read it. Likewise, if a contributor has been advised how to verify in the past, they do not need to receive a separate notice how to verify for each new copyright problem.
No matter how credible an editor's claim is, every claim of permission must be verified officially through one of the processes below. If permission is verified through either of these processes, mark the listing with the appropriate notation template. Text for which permission has not been verified in due time is treated substantially the same as text for which permission is not asserted, although it is courteous to alert the contributor to deletion with {{ Cup}}.
Permission that is stored in Foundation's Volunteer Response Team software is logged at the article's talk page by an VRT agent, usually with {{ Ticket confirmation}}. The VRT agent who responds should remove any copyright warnings from the article's face and add any required attribution. {{ Permission pending}} and {{ Permission received}} are not verifications of permission. However, if the article's talk has been tagged {{ Permission received}}, you may wish to check with the VRT agent who tagged it for an update before deleting the article as unverified (see below). If the article has been tagged {{ Permission pending}} for five days, it may be considered unverified. VRT agents can restore deleted articles if the VRT permission clears past deadline.
If no VRT verification has been provided, check to see if a link has been provided to a licensing statement somewhere on the article's source. (You will have presumably already checked the obvious locations during the investigation process.) If it has, check the provided link to see if it holds a usable licensing statement which specifies that the material is licensed compatibly with CC-By-SA. If you verify that a usable licensing statement exists, attribute it within the article with {{ CC-notice}}.
If a copyright violation is confirmed and there is either no credible assertion of permission or evidence of compatible licensing or public domain status, the text will need to be removed.
Older daily log pages can be found at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/year month day]].
Notations used on the copyright problems board by admins and clerks are found below. They can also be located in the edit notice at the top of every page in the "copyright problems" space.
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
![]() | This help page is a
how-to guide. It details processes or procedures of some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms and practices. It is not one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and may reflect varying levels of
consensus and
vetting. |
This is a guide for clerks working through Wikipedia:Copyright problems. The main WP:CP page has a link to each day's daily log page. The 'edit' link for the daily log page can be reached from the main WP:CP page.
It is important to thoroughly investigate each article before removing any copyvio-related tags and/or text. The investigation process includes evaluating the article and source and, if copyrighted text has been used, ensuring that proper permission to use the text has been granted. For listings at the copyright problems board, there may be relevant comments from other editors at the board itself or on the talk page; remember to check for these.
Sometimes articles are tagged with {{ copyvio}} without a source being named. Frequently, articles tagged for {{ Close paraphrasing}} or {{ Copy-paste}} do not identify their sources. If the source is not obvious, a simple Google search or a run-through with Earwig's Copyvio Detector can help. Check the article's history as well, the text may have been removed by another editor. Otherwise, handling depends on which tag it is.
{{
CPC|un}}
.If a source is located, you can proceed with evaluating the issue.
At each stage, an answer of "yes" or "maybe" to the core question indicates a need to continue. An answer of "no" does not. If a copyright problem cannot be substantiated, you should communicate your findings at the article's talk page to help avoid future mistaggings.
{{
CPC|ba}}
.When a contributor gives credible claim of permission or ownership, they should be given notice of how to proceed under Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials or Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and permitted time to verify before an article is deleted. This is less common than other types of listing and infringement. Seven days is commonly allowed, and the article remains templated while awaiting verification. It may be appropriate, but generally discouraged, to revert to the last clean version in history while awaiting verification if the text was introduced recently.
To see if permission is asserted, check the talk page, edit summaries, and the user talk page of the contributor who added the text. Sometimes new editors are unsure where to claim permission and could state their claim in unlikely places. You may choose to operate as though a credible claim of permission has been asserted if the contributor's username suggests an affiliation with the suspected source. If a contributor has asserted permission but was not notified of the process for verification at least five days ago, relist under an appropriate date to extend that deadline. If the contributor was not notified how to verify at all, remedy that and relist under today's date.
Some common sense is necessary here. The "copyright problem" template that blanks an article's face itself provides instruction for verification. If a contributor has been routinely contributing to the talk page of a blanked article, they may be presumed to have seen the template and read it. Likewise, if a contributor has been advised how to verify in the past, they do not need to receive a separate notice how to verify for each new copyright problem.
No matter how credible an editor's claim is, every claim of permission must be verified officially through one of the processes below. If permission is verified through either of these processes, mark the listing with the appropriate notation template. Text for which permission has not been verified in due time is treated substantially the same as text for which permission is not asserted, although it is courteous to alert the contributor to deletion with {{ Cup}}.
Permission that is stored in Foundation's Volunteer Response Team software is logged at the article's talk page by an VRT agent, usually with {{ Ticket confirmation}}. The VRT agent who responds should remove any copyright warnings from the article's face and add any required attribution. {{ Permission pending}} and {{ Permission received}} are not verifications of permission. However, if the article's talk has been tagged {{ Permission received}}, you may wish to check with the VRT agent who tagged it for an update before deleting the article as unverified (see below). If the article has been tagged {{ Permission pending}} for five days, it may be considered unverified. VRT agents can restore deleted articles if the VRT permission clears past deadline.
If no VRT verification has been provided, check to see if a link has been provided to a licensing statement somewhere on the article's source. (You will have presumably already checked the obvious locations during the investigation process.) If it has, check the provided link to see if it holds a usable licensing statement which specifies that the material is licensed compatibly with CC-By-SA. If you verify that a usable licensing statement exists, attribute it within the article with {{ CC-notice}}.
If a copyright violation is confirmed and there is either no credible assertion of permission or evidence of compatible licensing or public domain status, the text will need to be removed.
Older daily log pages can be found at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/year month day]].
Notations used on the copyright problems board by admins and clerks are found below. They can also be located in the edit notice at the top of every page in the "copyright problems" space.
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|