Talk:California Prison Industry Authority

Copyright infringment

http://www.calpia.ca.gov/About_PIA/AboutPIA.aspx

http://www.calpia.ca.gov/pdf/Public_Affairs/2016-Jan/LegReport2014-2015.pdf

The above appear to be the sources — Iadmc♫^talk  20:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edit blanking the page is in blatant violation of WP:COPYVIO, and as such in violation of long standing policy to discuss controversial edits beforehand. As such, I have reverted your edits as it pertains to my material. I strongly recommend you do not make this mistake again.

For one, you are wrong, the infobox, lede, and everything after the reference section was either added by self, and lacks copyright protection (a URL citation is too basic to be copyrightable.) This alone voids your edit.

In addition, works of California are not copyright, as California has expressly disclaimed copyright in its works (placing them in the public domain by express will) for most of its works, as per the Sunshine Amendment to the Consitution and the California Public Records Act. This is in addition to my first claim, which alone refutes your copyvio claim in my material which you removed. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah... I used Wikipedia:Copyright problems § Suspected or complicated infringement to figure out how to handle this. It seemed "complicated" by the fact that not all of it was exactly the same as the source text so I followed what it advised after "or reversion/removal is otherwise complicated". I.e. "Replace the text with one of the following:"

The above doesn't mention discussion but obviously it should (and link to WP:COPYVIO).

Sorry if I misinterpreted. I am new to Copyvio situations.

Sorry if I upset you by also blanking your text. I see now that I should have reverted to before User:CALPIA 1's edits per the first bullet in the text linked above. Or better still, just left my comments at the talk page and let someone else deal with it.

Finally, I was unaware that the State of California had passed that Proposition as I am in the UK. I know now: thank you. (I should have looked for © on the document above—which isn't there, though it is on the website I've linked to.)

Hopefully this can now be dealt with in the proper manner by those who know how to handle such things. Sorry again — Iadmc♫^talk  01:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I myself am new to the procedure, I've never had it used on an article I created. "Remove the infringing text or revert the page to a non-copyrighted version if you can." You should have first looked to the very first versions from when I created the article, and noticed that they did not include your cited material. This would also preempt the "Blatant infringement" section. But it appears you chose the second option, without regard to its proviso, "However, if all revisions have copyright problems, the removal of the copyright problem is contested, or reversion/removal is otherwise complicated".

Template:Copyvio discusses its use in further detail: "If only part of the page is a likely copyright violation, you may replace only that section. The template by default will blank all content following it; to limit the blanking, place {{Copyviocore bottom}} at the point where copyright concerns end."

My biggest issue is that the infobox and footer information should not have been included in the blanking, resulting in a completely blanked page and claiming to prevent other editors (me) from continuing our work. It seemed to claim that even my initial creation was copyvio. I've been making significant edits to this article is recent days, and your blanking stopped me dead in my tracks. The claim of the copyvio template is essentially "just wait while we sort out technical problems", yet I am still unsure if any "investigation" was, would be, is, or will be started by what you did, leaving the article in limbo.

The material which might have been pulled from these state reports is valid debate. I think they're not covered by copyright, although the state department that handles websites has the copyright claim on their standard web template that all agencies use, that doesn't mean all their reports, and even that small assertion is invalid on its face given California law. But the situation is not as obvious as the footer and header material I added, which is not within your asserted copyrighted material at all. It makes no difference IMO, I think this other challenged material needs to be paraphrased, not pulled wholesale like was done. My stern response was because I originally thought this was done by an admin, which I would have been loathe to revert, and I was (and am) quite annoyed that someone can paste potentially copyvio material into an article I create and get the article blanked or speedily deleted without regard to the finer details of WP:COPYVIO or WP:CP. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Understood. I have learnt a valuable lesson, though unfortunately at your expense. I will be more careful next time I consider blanking a page for perceived copyvio. Anyway, I suspect someone will be along now you've reported me at WP:CCI... which I think is for blatant multiple copyright infringements by a single editor (including sock-puppets) rather than a single, disruptive action blanking potential copyvio. They might not be best pleased with either of us... Anyway, we'll just have to sit tight for now. You can of course edit around the disputed material. Even use the history to dig it out and paraphrase it. I might do that myself actually, in userspace, as a gesture of goodwill. I'll have a look over the coming days. Sorry again — Iadmc♫^talk  06:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've learned my lesson also. :( I originally wrote my response as though you were an admin, and didn't tone it down enough. I apologize for responding so negatively. We don't need to worry about CCI, they're bureaucrats that specialize in copyright issues, which neither of us have done, but I needed a name for the template. (We'll probably want your name, or the request, removed or purged.) I myself have never been involved in a copyvio dispute, but it's clear to me that some clarification is needed in the process.

As a general rule of thumb, I edit copyvio material I don't revert it, as there is much to be gained. Copying and pasting is often the beginning editors' first foray into Wikipedia (and possibly post-secondary academic discourse in general), and their participation should be encouraged and guided gently. Inasmuch as they've chosen a particular article to begin their serious editing, they're probably fairly passionate about the subject and/or the material they're adding, and I think these are potential cues for us more experienced editors. They obviously did enough research to find a valuable source. This is why I was editing around the material. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 07:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:DBTN... fair enough.

Hello California Prison Industry Authority, Iadmc has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hm, not what I intended but it makes the page look nice!

Anyway... to continue. The "newbie" here appears to be CALPIA 1 (talk · contribs) i.e. the very people this article is about. That could violate WP:COI but since they are a prison authority we might have to let them off... And I just smiled at them (meaning to create an emoji...) so all is well, I guess — Iadmc♫^talk  09:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I've just removed the content in question from the article per the copyvio report. I didn't see the above claim that the content is in the public domain as it's buried in a wall of text. While I'm not sure whether that claim is valid (it might depend on the exact relationship between CALPIA and the California government - it seems to be at least semi-autonomous) it is clear to me that the content should not be here regardless. It isn't appropriate per WP:NPOV to have an article about some organisation consist almost entirely of text from a report that organisation created to justify itself. Hut 8.5 22:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Hut 8.5, I was going to do exactly the same when I got home (which, of course, I now have). My thinking:

• I'm not a lawyer and even if I was I might not know what to believe when a state government claims copyright on its published pages even if its own laws don't allow it to
• it's better to err on the side of caution
• the copying goes back to the third edit in the history
• none of it was referenced
• none of it was properly attributed to the source, as it would have to be even if it's public domain
• none (that I can remember) of it was remotely encyclopaedic in tone or style

Int21h and Iadmc seem to have sorted out their differences, which is good to see. What I think this page needs now is some independent reliable sources that actually give some information about the body, what it's supposed to do, and why it's failing to do it (at least, that's the impression I get). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Hut 8.5: Thanks for sorting this out! @Justlettersandnumbers: I did wonder about erring on the side of caution and did notice the fact that the copyvio was ancient which is why I originally blanked the entire page. I hope Int21h is happy with the result and can continue expanding and sourcing the article. Sorry to annoy you again! — Iadmc♫^talk  23:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Questionable March edits by user Sme145

I'm an inexperienced Wikipedia editor, so I'm not aware of what actions to take and therefore am not taking action. The user in question modified the page to what appears to be a non-neutral point of view (though to be fair, I'm not sure if the previous revision was all that neutral). The revision they made appears very favorably towards the CALPIA, and this page has a seemingly clear history of revisions by CALPIA with usernames purportedly created by them and stating that the edits were made by CALPIA in the edit history logs.

Not only that, but they also removed related pages that seemed perfectly relevant, such as UNICOR being something of a federal equivalent, prison industrial complex, penal labor in the united states. The page is basically entirely cleansed of any other information. FuzzierDunlop (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Every time Hillary and the rest of the do-gooders sneer at other nations for "prison labor" I have to giggle. PLus the absolute whitewash by CALPIA1 is pretty funny. Ths US is such a bunch of hypocrites ... 116.231.75.71 (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)