Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Contributor copyright investigations page. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| |||
| Archives: 1 | |||
 | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Sections with no replies in 14 days are automatically moved. |
Contents |
[edit] User Warnings
User:Lou72JG has an open investigation and some of his/her images have been found to be copyright violations. The user continues to question why their images are being removed or challenged and continues to upload images. The user has also re-uploaded images that have been previously deleted using the PUI/PUF process. Although this user has had all the standard template messages they dont appear to have any formal warnings. Once the investigation has found copyright violations should we warn these users to stop uploading images and block them if they continue, perhaps the CCI should have some guidance on this. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Final warning issued, if it is not heeded, an indef will be in order. MLauba (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks but should it be mentioned in the process using the sort of message you used ? MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] A new template, presumptive deletion
In conjunction with Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Henry Delforn, I have created {{subst:CCId}} for articles which are tagged for deletion without verification of copyright infringement. Current policy supports this presumptive deletion in cases where it has been verified that an individual has violated copyright in multiple points. The template presumes listing at WP:CP and advises interested contributors how to help verify the copyright status of the material or to rewrite the content if interested in its preservation. It cautions against use in cases where previous contents can be restored (where the contributor was not the creator) and recommends instead verifying infringement where other contributors have invested time (and creative content) into the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk)
[edit] Are there standard warning messages
Stevolivin (talk • contribs • count) appears to be inserting paragraphs whole into articles with a convenient link to the page from which he plagiarised the information. Are there standard message somewhere to try and educate about what they have done and maybe enlist their help in clearing up the copyvios that they created?--Peter cohen (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not a lot. The typical user copyright templates are gathered at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Resources#For user pages (all of them, for user pages and otherwise, are here). We have a few for this board, but nothing of the sort that you address. I'd probably go with {{Uw-copyright}} and maybe import some of the language from {{Uw-c&pmove}} (the "if there are any other pages that you...even if it was a long time ago, please" bit). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I've opted for softer wording as I'm trying to encourage him to fix his own vios. Is there an automatic way to "stalk" an editor and be infromed of future edits by them? Or do I have to rememebr to check up on him myself?--Peter cohen (talk)
- If there's an automatic way, sadly, I don't know it. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I've opted for softer wording as I'm trying to encourage him to fix his own vios. Is there an automatic way to "stalk" an editor and be infromed of future edits by them? Or do I have to rememebr to check up on him myself?--Peter cohen (talk)
[edit] Presumptive deletion of images
I had a look at some of the entries for files uploaded by Bci2, and there is a wide variety of claims on the copyright ranging from being the copyright holder to stating that the material has been released in the public domain. Based on the two files that I tagged, I suspect that none of the claims for any of the images are credible. It looks like David Eppstein and some other editors have spent some considerable time combing through the listing and carefully sourcing the violations. Aside from some non-creative images of text, and the PDF files, the image files so far are all copyvios. We have a presumptive deletion template for articles. Should we have one for images too? -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- We do, though we sometimes will extend the benefit of the doubt if one series of pictures by an image uploader has consistent metadata. I'm not entirely sure if we should, since they could be simply snagging the images from one source, but images are not my main area so I bow to those with more experience. Wikipedia:Copyright violations has not for some time limited its presumptive deletion to text. I think that the careful combing through is a good idea, as it clearly establishes a pattern of violation, but once a strong pattern has emerged we don't really seem to have any viable option. Usually, what I do is let the image folks have at such CCIs for a while and come in as a last cleanup crew, mopping up anything that has not been tagged as viable and nominating any images that have gone to Commons for deletion. Commons, sensibly, has an option for mass deletion debates for copyright problems. Unfortunately, Commons also has a monster backlog. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Convention on talk page note when copyvio has already been edited out?
I found a copyvio in a CCI listed article, but the copyvio text had already been excised by a revision of the article unconnected with the CCI. In such a case, should any note be placed in the article's talk page a la {{CCI}} or {{cclean}}? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
