This is not the place to ask questions, to report errors, or to contact Wikipedia.
This page is only for discussion of the WP:Copyright problems/Advice for admins page itself.
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This is to give newly arriving admins the help I could have done with when I started work on this (instead I had to pester User:Geni for instructions). Any additions? -- Ngb ?!? 16:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
?!? wrote: Two maxims: Be bold, but temper this with the avoidance of copyright paranoia. i.e. don't shirk from deleting violations (articles can always be got back, anyway, though images can't) but don't delete things without checking them properly just because someone listed them here. Not everything listed here is actually a violation: separating those that are from those that aren't is up to you.
Mentioning "be bold" in "Copyright problems/Advice for admins" is disingeous. The concept explained on "be bold" wikipedia is in CREATING material, not DELETING material.
In fact, copyright is not mentioned once in the Be bold article.
I found Eric Stern on new page patrol and tagged it as a copyvio. The uploader has submitted a revised version. Assuming I can verify that the enw version ios not a copyvio, is there any reason to wait 7 days before delting the infringing version and repalcign it with the revised version? The infrigign version was a direct copy&paste, and since a revised version wa ssubmitted it seems there will be no claim of permission -- besides the revision is more NPOV anyway. DES (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I followed the procedure to delete an article and replace it with new, non-infringing text on the article/Temp page. All well and good. But should anything be done with its entry on WP:CP? I struck it out and added an HTML comment about what I did. I doubt that's the proper procedure since the page isn't full of stricken lines, but I didn't want another admin to come along later and think the new text is the old, infringing text and delete it. (I'm new to this function – I'd put up the original copyvio notice, and the author of the new text notified me that a new article was ready.) Thanks. — Kbh3rd talk 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any specific message that should be entered as the deletion reason when deleting a copyvio? Just saying "copyvio" (or similar) doesn't seem sufficient to indicate that it has been through WP:CP, checked that it is a real violation, etc. -- TheParanoidOne 19:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
U== Why delete? ==
The previous version of this page asked admins to revert the article back to untainted version if possible or delete the the article if that is not possible. The current version says that the article needs to be deleted and the versions undeleted. It appears unnecessary if a simple revert can perform the same goal easily. Any reasons as to why it was changed to the current version and any pointers to policy that can indicate the need for the change? -- Gurubrahma 05:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
THE
This was an UNAUTHORIZED ACCT BY HACKERS TO TRYING TO ROB ME AND THEY KNOW I HAVE NOTHING T9 GIVE ARE HOMELESS DRUG AADDICT AND THE LAST TI. I SAW HIM HE RAPED M😡😡😡😡😡😡😡 SO I DONT KNOW EHY HE OR WHAT TYPE OF DRUGS THEY ARE ON FOR THEM TO THINK ITS OKAY TO EVER CONTACT ME EVER AGAIN IN LIFE!!!!!!!!!!? SO PLEASE CLOSE WHATEVER THIS ACCT IS FOR
THANK YOU≈K
Why has Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Log not been updated since May 31, 2006? Is the bot that kept it up no longer running? Is this a problem, or are they no longer considered important? (If so, the language in item 7 should probably be rewritten. -- MCB 22:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This has been addressed in a couple of ways here, but I'm still cloudy on accepted process. Let's say you have a situation like this: article permalink Used hardware; talk page permalink Talk: Used hardware. The article is tagged for speedy deletion, a proper 'holdon' has been lodged, and the author indicates on the talk page that copyright permission is being pursued. Now, my instinct based on what I've read is that I should a) delete the article, b) do not delete the associated talk page, c) inform the author that undeletion should be pursued once copyright permission is secured and confirmed (with reference to Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed). An alternative approach would be to PROD the article with the reason being 'copyright permission being pursued by author - delete in proper timeframe should permission not be confirmed by PROD expiry'. I recently binge-deleted about 10 articles that were copy-vios that could eventually reappear here after permission is secured and ... I feel a little dirty about that, so I wanted to confirm what the specific recommended path is as of the end of 2006 (this assumes that a non-copyvio version is not available in the history). Thanks for your advice. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to the admin role, but want to help with the copyright backlog if I can... a couple of questions for more experienced admins:
Hoping to help, but wanting to be careful... -- Alvestrand 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I just deleted a copyvio'ed section from Adam and Eve (found the same section before the edit that had replaced it with copyvioed text and restored it). The section was added in [1] - more than a month ago. That means the offending text will be visible in the article history over 50-odd revisions. Does anyone care? -- Alvestrand 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The advice is to revert to clean version if possible, else delete the article. What if the 1st edit was the copyvio, but useful additional material was since added and we know that the topic is notable ? Deletion of the article would seem wrong (it is a notable topic), but clearly bulk of article needs to go, leaving just a stub.
The article in question is Evans syndrome (it is a real condition), my attack on its wikistyling and referencing/footnotes were these (My increasing realisation something wrong with article layout, led me to try to fix the references and the Maddison Foundation link proved a total rendition of the original article). David Ruben Talk 03:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there something special about Copyright problems, as opposed to other deletion processes, or can non-admins clear copyvios and strike through them once cleared just as well as admins?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's fair to say I've spent a considerable amount of time at WP:CP over the last three months. When I got here, there was a shameful 45-day backlog of problems without resolution. We managed to kill that backlog a few days ago. Now that it's gone, it's time to address this terribly outdated 'advice' page. Confusing is the nicest thing I can say about it - there have been no significant updates or changes to it since October 2006, and we've had policy changes in that 18 months that made these instructions almost obsolete.
In 2007, WP:CSD#G12 was changed to include all pages without assertion of permission/ownership, regardless of date or length of history. These instructions completely glossed over that and still referred to the old 48-hour time frame for G12 deletion. The steps didn't flow from a to b to c, when the process we actually use to work with these problems is the same every time.
So, I boldly submitted my revision today and I invite everyone to look it over, fix it, switch it around, and, of course, comment. The images portion is the trickiest, because we've got 7 or 8 guidelines that say to go 'elsewhere' for copyright problems, but they're all different.
I used a mishmash of these three in the Images section, but I'm not at all sure I did it correctly. If someone knows the right answer(s), I'm all ears. My worry, though, is that there is no right answer, and that we've actually got a big mash-up of conflicting guidelines, processes, advice, and instructions.
I went bold because these instructions were inconsistent and I felt a change was important. Thanks in advance for all your comments. - Krakatoa Katie 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've encountered a situation recently where another admin seemed unclear on the rewriting done at the temporary talk page. I wonder if this document needs to more openly address the GFDL rights of contributors. A temporary "do-over" can't use text contributed by other editors; otherwise, when we delete those foundational edits, we've violated copyright ourselves. This, of course, because Wikipedia doesn't own copyright to material hosted here. Contributors do. They merely license its use and reuse for others under the terms of GFDL so long as authorship history is maintained. Deleting that history is a problem. :) I've done a minor tweak to this document to address that, but I begin to wonder if this fact needs more explanation, the already-complicated nature of this notwithstanding. Thoughts? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Just want to give praise for the new shape of this page. Compared to what it was when I dabbled in copyright backlog handling several months ago, it's a huge improvement. I'm sure new people who join the backlog crew (once Moonriddengirl stops doing such a fantastic job of keeping the backlog down) will find this to be enormously helpful.
Excellent work! -- Alvestrand ( talk) 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
This is not the place to ask questions, to report errors, or to contact Wikipedia.
This page is only for discussion of the WP:Copyright problems/Advice for admins page itself.
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This is to give newly arriving admins the help I could have done with when I started work on this (instead I had to pester User:Geni for instructions). Any additions? -- Ngb ?!? 16:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
?!? wrote: Two maxims: Be bold, but temper this with the avoidance of copyright paranoia. i.e. don't shirk from deleting violations (articles can always be got back, anyway, though images can't) but don't delete things without checking them properly just because someone listed them here. Not everything listed here is actually a violation: separating those that are from those that aren't is up to you.
Mentioning "be bold" in "Copyright problems/Advice for admins" is disingeous. The concept explained on "be bold" wikipedia is in CREATING material, not DELETING material.
In fact, copyright is not mentioned once in the Be bold article.
I found Eric Stern on new page patrol and tagged it as a copyvio. The uploader has submitted a revised version. Assuming I can verify that the enw version ios not a copyvio, is there any reason to wait 7 days before delting the infringing version and repalcign it with the revised version? The infrigign version was a direct copy&paste, and since a revised version wa ssubmitted it seems there will be no claim of permission -- besides the revision is more NPOV anyway. DES (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I followed the procedure to delete an article and replace it with new, non-infringing text on the article/Temp page. All well and good. But should anything be done with its entry on WP:CP? I struck it out and added an HTML comment about what I did. I doubt that's the proper procedure since the page isn't full of stricken lines, but I didn't want another admin to come along later and think the new text is the old, infringing text and delete it. (I'm new to this function – I'd put up the original copyvio notice, and the author of the new text notified me that a new article was ready.) Thanks. — Kbh3rd talk 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Is there any specific message that should be entered as the deletion reason when deleting a copyvio? Just saying "copyvio" (or similar) doesn't seem sufficient to indicate that it has been through WP:CP, checked that it is a real violation, etc. -- TheParanoidOne 19:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
U== Why delete? ==
The previous version of this page asked admins to revert the article back to untainted version if possible or delete the the article if that is not possible. The current version says that the article needs to be deleted and the versions undeleted. It appears unnecessary if a simple revert can perform the same goal easily. Any reasons as to why it was changed to the current version and any pointers to policy that can indicate the need for the change? -- Gurubrahma 05:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
THE
This was an UNAUTHORIZED ACCT BY HACKERS TO TRYING TO ROB ME AND THEY KNOW I HAVE NOTHING T9 GIVE ARE HOMELESS DRUG AADDICT AND THE LAST TI. I SAW HIM HE RAPED M😡😡😡😡😡😡😡 SO I DONT KNOW EHY HE OR WHAT TYPE OF DRUGS THEY ARE ON FOR THEM TO THINK ITS OKAY TO EVER CONTACT ME EVER AGAIN IN LIFE!!!!!!!!!!? SO PLEASE CLOSE WHATEVER THIS ACCT IS FOR
THANK YOU≈K
Why has Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Log not been updated since May 31, 2006? Is the bot that kept it up no longer running? Is this a problem, or are they no longer considered important? (If so, the language in item 7 should probably be rewritten. -- MCB 22:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
This has been addressed in a couple of ways here, but I'm still cloudy on accepted process. Let's say you have a situation like this: article permalink Used hardware; talk page permalink Talk: Used hardware. The article is tagged for speedy deletion, a proper 'holdon' has been lodged, and the author indicates on the talk page that copyright permission is being pursued. Now, my instinct based on what I've read is that I should a) delete the article, b) do not delete the associated talk page, c) inform the author that undeletion should be pursued once copyright permission is secured and confirmed (with reference to Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed). An alternative approach would be to PROD the article with the reason being 'copyright permission being pursued by author - delete in proper timeframe should permission not be confirmed by PROD expiry'. I recently binge-deleted about 10 articles that were copy-vios that could eventually reappear here after permission is secured and ... I feel a little dirty about that, so I wanted to confirm what the specific recommended path is as of the end of 2006 (this assumes that a non-copyvio version is not available in the history). Thanks for your advice. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to the admin role, but want to help with the copyright backlog if I can... a couple of questions for more experienced admins:
Hoping to help, but wanting to be careful... -- Alvestrand 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I just deleted a copyvio'ed section from Adam and Eve (found the same section before the edit that had replaced it with copyvioed text and restored it). The section was added in [1] - more than a month ago. That means the offending text will be visible in the article history over 50-odd revisions. Does anyone care? -- Alvestrand 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The advice is to revert to clean version if possible, else delete the article. What if the 1st edit was the copyvio, but useful additional material was since added and we know that the topic is notable ? Deletion of the article would seem wrong (it is a notable topic), but clearly bulk of article needs to go, leaving just a stub.
The article in question is Evans syndrome (it is a real condition), my attack on its wikistyling and referencing/footnotes were these (My increasing realisation something wrong with article layout, led me to try to fix the references and the Maddison Foundation link proved a total rendition of the original article). David Ruben Talk 03:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there something special about Copyright problems, as opposed to other deletion processes, or can non-admins clear copyvios and strike through them once cleared just as well as admins?-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It's fair to say I've spent a considerable amount of time at WP:CP over the last three months. When I got here, there was a shameful 45-day backlog of problems without resolution. We managed to kill that backlog a few days ago. Now that it's gone, it's time to address this terribly outdated 'advice' page. Confusing is the nicest thing I can say about it - there have been no significant updates or changes to it since October 2006, and we've had policy changes in that 18 months that made these instructions almost obsolete.
In 2007, WP:CSD#G12 was changed to include all pages without assertion of permission/ownership, regardless of date or length of history. These instructions completely glossed over that and still referred to the old 48-hour time frame for G12 deletion. The steps didn't flow from a to b to c, when the process we actually use to work with these problems is the same every time.
So, I boldly submitted my revision today and I invite everyone to look it over, fix it, switch it around, and, of course, comment. The images portion is the trickiest, because we've got 7 or 8 guidelines that say to go 'elsewhere' for copyright problems, but they're all different.
I used a mishmash of these three in the Images section, but I'm not at all sure I did it correctly. If someone knows the right answer(s), I'm all ears. My worry, though, is that there is no right answer, and that we've actually got a big mash-up of conflicting guidelines, processes, advice, and instructions.
I went bold because these instructions were inconsistent and I felt a change was important. Thanks in advance for all your comments. - Krakatoa Katie 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've encountered a situation recently where another admin seemed unclear on the rewriting done at the temporary talk page. I wonder if this document needs to more openly address the GFDL rights of contributors. A temporary "do-over" can't use text contributed by other editors; otherwise, when we delete those foundational edits, we've violated copyright ourselves. This, of course, because Wikipedia doesn't own copyright to material hosted here. Contributors do. They merely license its use and reuse for others under the terms of GFDL so long as authorship history is maintained. Deleting that history is a problem. :) I've done a minor tweak to this document to address that, but I begin to wonder if this fact needs more explanation, the already-complicated nature of this notwithstanding. Thoughts? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Just want to give praise for the new shape of this page. Compared to what it was when I dabbled in copyright backlog handling several months ago, it's a huge improvement. I'm sure new people who join the backlog crew (once Moonriddengirl stops doing such a fantastic job of keeping the backlog down) will find this to be enormously helpful.
Excellent work! -- Alvestrand ( talk) 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)