Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material

Proposal 14

For the record, CSD proposal #14 read "Articles consisting entirely of material copied from an existing web page, if such text is an advertisement, or unverifiable." (should be speedily deletable). It was voted down because this phrasing was redundant with the copyvio process. Radiant_>|< 17:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal V (Copyright violations), where a similar proposal was rejected in January. —Cryptic (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

New user errors

The proposal justification says It would also be unusual for a copyrighted work to be legally uploaded and the editor not make any assertion of permission.

I belive this is incorrect, and that people copying content from their own sites, wihich have copyright notices, is a fairly common event. Also frequent are claims that an uplaoder has permission from an organization for which s/he works (often a non-profit) to upload comment. in both cases these claims are typically made ONLY after the user is contacted or sees the copyvio notice. DES ^(talk) 18:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

As far as i am aware there is much more stuff without permission than with. Plus, as stated, the material can be re-uploaded properly with ease (as it exists in the copied source). Normally people who copy material legally add a reference to the webpage, even if they do not state it is with permission, as far as i am concerned this would breach the parameters and force it through wp:cp, maybe the parameters could be re-worded to make this more obvious. thanks Martin - The non-blue non-moose 18:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Both of the above individuals are correct—the bulk of unsourced apparent copyvio material is a copyvio per Martin/Bluemoose, but a significant number (in absolute terms) of apparent copyvios turn out to be submitted by people who are eligible to release the material. I've received several polite notes from anonymous or new editors after I flagged their 'copyvio' contributions, and in many cases I've been able to establish appropriate permission did exist.

I'd be concerned about the following scenario taking place:

1. Anonymous editor uploads a copy of his personal work that also appears on his website.
2. Article is deleted summarily as copyvio.
3. Anonymous editor says, "Hey! Where'd my article go?" (Unlike with our current copyvio procedure, there's no pointer to further information left at the original article location.)
4. Anonymous editor resubmits the article.
5. Article is summarily deleted again by another admin. Repeat ad nauseam.
6. Anonymous contributor gives up and leaves, unaware of how to remedy the situation and wondering why MediaWiki is 'broken'.

While I would actually support being able to speedy copyvio contributions, it's worthwhile to consider the potential for collateral damage, and how it might be ameliorated. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The same potential exists for editors who persistently upload articles about people but do not assert the notability, hence article is deleted, they re-upload it, we delete again........ we happily deleted that stuff. A potential solution to the matter may be a requirement that the uploader is notified on their talk page on why it was deleted, but I am not sure if even that is necessary. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 19:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't spend much time around WP:CP so I don't know how common it is that copied content is actually intended to be legitimate, but I am wondering if we can phrase this to catch the really illegitimate stuff? What is the proposal was ammended to include only content taken from commercial content providers (e.g. encyclopedias, newspapers, porn sites)? This would exclude "People to Save the Spotted Mink", "Uncle Joe's House of Yarn", and other non-profits that might actually be trying to share content, while covering sites I would consider truly unlikely to do so. Dragons flight 19:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The parameter "Uploader makes no assertion of permission and there is no chance that we have permission." aims to deal with what you're saying, obviously there is an element of ambiguity, but thats why we have admins. Maybe it could be re-worded to emphasise erring on the side of caution, in the same way that some almost-speedies will go through vfd if there is an element of doubt. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 20:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I like admin judgment as much as the next guy, but I guess I would prefer that a speedy copyvio clause is more along the lines of: "These types of sources, x, y, z, can be assumed to be always be illegimate and thus subject to speedy", rather than one that relies on a non-specific clause like "no chance". An admin would still have to decide whether it accurately falls into one of the forbidden categories, rather than deciding what is "no chance". The later seems to open up problems like: "Remember when XYZ gave us ABC? Never would have thought that was legitimate, but see there is always some chance." Arguments by anecdote just get ugly. Dragons flight 21:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the phrase and there is no chance that we have permission is so ambigious as to be useless. If this proposal goes forward, this phrase should be changed to a more objective test for cases where the chance of the situation described above by TenOfAllTrades is highly unlikely. (Otherwise I can foresee lots of arguements at VfU or somewhere about what conditions make it "obvious" that there is "no chance" that wikipedia might have permission.) Specifing "commercial" web site sources might be a way to do that. DES ^(talk) 21:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I also think that the proposal should require notification on the talk page of the uplaoder (at least if the uplaoder was logged in or seemed to be suing a static IP) as a condition of deletion. (I would favor such a requirement for speedies under A7 too, and i routinely notify edtors whose contriutions i tag with {{nn-bio}} myself.) DES ^(talk) 21:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC) reposted after edit conflict with Dragons flight

OK, so if it said something like and is from a commercial website rather than and there is no chance that we have permission would that be acceptable? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 21:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That would be significantly better, IMO. I still think that a delay period would be desireable, but that change might make it less essential. I still think that polite and clear notification of the uploader (when the uploader has a wikipedia talk page) is important, and if there is not to be a delay period, then IMO this becomes essential. I would also favor a "tag and bag" rule if there is to be no delay i.e. that no one, even an admin, could delete these on sight, but rather must tag them with a proper template, and wait for a second editor (an admin) to do the actual deletion, so that at least two people have agreed that the deletion is proper. (I think this would not be a bad idea for most of the speedy categories, except for obvious vandalism ot the gibberish form of patent nonsense).DES ^(talk) 22:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I do this to a certain extent already. Unless I am absolutely convinced that something I come accross is speediable, I don't delete it but put an apropriate speedy tag on it. This is particularly the case with judgment calls like nn-bio, where using this method two separate people have to agree that it makes no assertion of notability. I think it makes sense in this case to require the judment of two people - even if the first person to spot it is an administrator. I think also that when a page like this is deleted, we note on the talk page (which we wouldn't delete) that a previous version of this page was deleted for being a copyright violation of X. Perhaps we could make it that if a talk page has that notice for the same site that the current copyvio is from then it must go through the existing copyvio system? Thryduulf 10:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Objections to the proposal

I think that the proposal should be changed to indicate that a copyvio tag repalce the content for at lwast 48 hours, and deeltion not occur during that time.

This would alllow ignorante users to become aware of their errors (either uplaoding copyrighted contnet, or failing to proeprly indicate that they have permisison) in a clearer and morefreindly way than simply finding the page deleted.

This also makes it more likely that a mirror will pick up the copyvio notice rather than the infringing content, or replace the infringing content with the notice if it had picked up the content. many mirrors react to article deeltions by simply leaving the last version of a deleted article in place. DES ^(talk) 18:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

We speedy delete a range of other types of articles (some in good faith, e.g. no notability asserted), so deleting these is no different, in fact i would say there is more reason to speedy delete patent copyvio than there is biographies with no notability asserted. I don't think many people don't realise you are not legally allowed to cut n' paste from a copyrighted webpage, and even if they don't then maybe the big warning on the edit screen saying DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION! would be a giveaway! Copyright violators know what they are doing.

Mirrors can worry about it for themselves, they must be capable of not publishing an article we have deleted, if they choose otherwise then so be it. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 18:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it. We run the risk of deleting perfectly licensable content for no real reason. I don't see that there's anything seriously wrong with the process as it is -- leaving a seven-day period for editors to investigate possible copyright violations (and, on a case by case basis, asking for permission). m:Avoid copyright paranoia -- this is a solution looking for a problem. --Ngb ^?!? 19:00, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Please describe how perfectly licensable material might be deleted, I think the parameters make this very difficult. Take a look at WP:CP, it is overloaded with obvious deletes, when the people maintaining it could be working on ambiguous cases. This is not a solution looking for a problem, or even a solution for a problem, but a way of making wikipedia more efficient. thanks Martin - The non-blue non-moose 19:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Because the criteria are subjective. Making a judgement that 'there is no chance that we have permission' is impossible without the input of the article creator and/or the copyright holder, which is why the seven-day copyvio period had previously been instituted. It gives a decent period for the article creator to make any claims of ownership or permission and for that claim to be followed up. A decent number of the possible violations listed on WP:CP do turn out to be acceptably licensable when followed up -- from my recent work on the backlog, three or four articles out of the twenty or thirty that get listed each day turn out to be licensable. I even had an article recently where the copyright holder *hadn't* given permission for the material to be used, as the uploader had claimed, but having looked at the site declared she was perfectly happy to. This is the kind of thing we risk deleting on-sight by circumventing the current copyvio procedure. --Ngb ^?!? 06:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the issues Ngb has raised. More generally, what problem is this proposal trying to solve? Doesn't the existing copyvio procedure cover this adequately? (and in fact, provides more information to the community, since it becomes clear why an article disappeared. Nandesuka 14:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes but the current system is inefficient and very bloated, we speedy delete non-notable biographies, they could be put through the VFD (or should i say AFD), in fact they were put through VFD until recently, but now they are speedied because it was such a waste of time. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 14:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not really 'inefficient and bloated', it just doesn't have enough admins working on it (perhaps because we're all here arguing about this instead of clearing the copyvio backlog :-).

Basically as far as I can see doing the proper research to determine that 'there is no chance we have permission' is exactly what the copyvio process does. If an admin coming across a possible copyvio isn't doing this research then xe shouldn't be speedying the page (because xe will be unable to conclude that 'there is no chance we have permission'). If xe is doing the research, why can't it be done through the existing procedure?

--Ngb ^?!? 14:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggested clarification

The line that currently reads:

The article contains only copyright violation material.

should probably be clarified to specify that the article's entire history (aside from {{copyvio}}, {{stub}} and other meta-templates) is copyvio. -Sean Curtin 21:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

How about The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags and templates thanks Martin - The non-blue non-moose 22:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Support for the proposal

This is a good proposal.

The answer to most objections is simply that violators know what they are doing. Not allowing copying without explicit permission is not some weird idiosyncrasy of Wikipedia; it is standard practice all over the world. This stuff is taught in elementary school. There is no excuse for not knowing about it, and if you know about it, there is no excuse for doing it.

Another point: I think such a policy is necessary, to protect Wikipedia from legal troubles. If you put up a copyvio notice, the violated material is still there, and the copyright is still being violated. When there is some uncertainty, then by all means deal with it the slow way; when there is not, we need a way to get rid of the offending material quickly.

— Nowhither 23:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that a copyvio tag normally repalces the offending content except in the page history. This makews it vanish for msot purpsoes, and makes it invisible to search engiens. Note also that we can't generally get into legal trouble until after a copyright owner has made a specific request for the content to be removed. The current procedure is perfectly adaquete to protect wikipedia for any legal liability for copyright infringment. the only reason for teh new procedure is to reduce the load on the current process, and on out volunters. (I am not a lawyer, but i am a moderately serious student of US copyright law, and I am pretty sure of this. Also the foundfation's legal people have not indiacted that our current procedures are inadaquete in any way.) DES ^(talk) 18:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

And it may be culpable ignorace, but I think that many violaters in fact do not realize what they are doing. i also think that many of those who post copied content to which they do have rights have no idea of what the need to do to make the source and copyright situation clear on wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 18:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

A version I'd like

"An article or image that is a patent copyright violation and meets these parameters:"

• Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service, porn site).
• The article and its entire history contains only copyright violation material, excluding tags, templates, and minor edits.
• Uploader makes no assertion of permission or fair use, and none seems likely.
• The material is identified within 48 hours of upload and is almost or totally un-wikified (to avoid mirror problem).

This is a version that I would be happy with. I've made a few changes which I would explain as follows:

1. Add "or image": both IFD and CP see a significant share of copyrighted images, no small share of which is misappropriated porn.
2. Incorporate Martin's suggestion to Sean's concern about full history, with the mild addition of "minor edits", since even copyvios may see spelling corrections and the like.
3. Add "commercial content provider": As discussed above it is good to have a clear boundary between what might be okay and what is not okay. I prefer "commercial content provider" to "commercial website" for a couple reasons. First, commerical content providers covers the very broad class of people that are trying to make money on their work (and hence are unlikely to give them away). However, it excludes enterprises which, while commercial, may want to provide free content to Wikipedia for the purposes of free "advertising". For example, if Apple wanted to freely post images and descriptions about a new super-duper iPod surely we would want to incorporate that into iPod rather than delete it. I've heard it said that roughly 10% of advertisements added to Wikipedia are for products notable enough that they end up getting rewritten and preserved as their own article. I have no idea if it is true, but as it has been a major objection to other anti-advertising speedy proposals, I would like to draw a distinction here that this is about copied content and not advertising.
4. Add "or fair use", self-explanatory.
5. Change the phrase about "no chance": The first item now does a good job of spelling out what is intended. I'm leaving a back door open for things which may be fair use, though I would imagine that being rare.

This isn't necessarily perfect, and won't cover everything, but I think it addresses the major objections while still being good enough to both be likely to be accepted and be useful in combating copying. Comments? Other Objections? Dragons flight 02:36, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I like it, thanks. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 08:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• This is a significant improvement over the inital propsoal, IMO. However, I think there should be either a) a required delay period before anything is deleted under this scheme; or b) a requirement to notify the uploder before or just after tagging items for deletion under this proposal; or c) both. I also think that there should be a requirement that the person tagging pages for deletion under this proposal not be the person who actually does the deeltion, that at least two editors must be involved. With those additions i think i might be able to support this, otherwise i feel i must oppose it. DES ^(talk) 14:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • DES, I more or less agree with you that notice and a second set of eyes are important, but I disagree that it should be part of this proposal. If anything what you are talking about is more of a meta-proposal for how people should behave in any CSD situation. Tacking it on to just this one CSD criteria is awkward when there are any number of other criteria where your suggestions would make just as much sense. Might I suggest you start a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? Dragons flight 03:22, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think this nis even more important for this particualr criterion than for some others, adn I expect to oppsoe this proposal if it is not included, or at least some response from the proponent to these ideas. DES ^(talk) 01:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• This is a good idea to help deflate WP:CP. I have wondered in the past why we wait 7 days when almost nothing on WP:CP is ever challenged. Where things are challenged, the surprised newbie usually does so fairly quickly, especially if NP patrol catches it. A question:

1. Why not after 48 hours? What happens at the 48 hour mark?

I don't think the argument about mirrors holds water: there's nothing to stop the mirror catching in seconds if they happen to go crawling just after the creation. I think DES's suggestion of adding a mention to the uploader's talk page is good: we already have {{nothanks}} for that very purpose. As to two people, well, a lot of speedies get that already and no more harm will be done with this new speedy having a single pair of eyes than there is with any current speedy. Things can always go to VfU or, more likely, simply be re-created by the original editor who will have learnt they need to assert permission. There should be a clause saying "if the assertion is disputed, it should be taken to WP:CP instead".-Splash 19:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

48 hours was just to make it less likely that mirrors would catch it, obviously it isn't 100% watertight (although it would surely make it very unlikely), I am however starting to think that scrapping it and requiring a warning on the uploaders talk may be a better idea though, as you suggest. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 19:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think all of the changes by Dragons flight are improvements, except the switch to "commercial content provider". I do not think that is good at all. Why should we treat someone's rights with more respect simply because they charge for their content? This sets a particularly bad example, since we want people to respect Wikipedia's licensing, and of course WP does not charge (but does place restrictions on copying). — Nowhither 03:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The reson behind the "commercial content provider" is not that we treat their rights with more respect (althopugh if their rights aare infringed they could probably calim larger damages) but becsue it is far less likely that a commercial source will agree to reelase content under the GFDL. On WP:CP it is not uncommon for an uplaodeer to state that they have permission. In those cases where it is ultimately established that proper permission is available, it is usually from a private, personal site, and less frequently from the site of a non-profit org. it is almost never from the site of a "commercial content provider". The origianl language "no chance that we have permission" is IMO so vague and prone to debate/argument that I could never support a proposal containing that language, no matter what else is included. If yopu don't like this standard, propose some other language for the purpose. It should 1) Avoid pretty much all false positives: i.e. if the criterion is true ther is pretty much no chance of GFDL permission being given (or content being PD), and 2) it must be obviuous and objective. It must be possible from the face of the page and the site from which it is copied whether the criterion is true, with litttle or peferably no research, and there must be no room for argument -- and two sane uninvolved admins must come to the same conclusion in pretty much all cases. The requirement that the site be a "commercial content provider" fits both of those conditions. Note that copyvios that don't fit the proposed conditions will still be dealt with -- via our current procedure. DES ^(talk) 18:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I have changed the proposal to the ammended one by Dragons flight, i know not everyone is 100% happy with it, but are there any widely held problems with it? Personally i think it is good. Also, i moved the summary of criticisms to this page, as it is probably more appropriate here. thanks Martin - The non-blue non-moose 12:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Include Images in this proposal?

I have removed "or image" as that is a different issue really and isnt as much of a problem, plus there is the fair use issue etc. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 21:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me for arguing from self-interest, but in the areas I work in I see 10 times as many imagevios as copyvios on text. I would really to keep that part of the proposal. Dragons flight 22:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

My main concern is that many could be argued as "fair use" surely? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 22:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

• It is true that many images are uploaded that prove to be copyviuos, and WP:IFD and WP:PUI get backlogged much as WP:CP does. There are several reasons why images are not the same case, however, and perhaps should not be included in the proposal.
  1. Fair Use: It is very rare for a plausible calim of fair use to be made for the entire text of an article, particualrly with no non-copied text (required before this proposal would apply). However it is quote common that a plausible fair use claim coud be made on a single image, to be used in connection with a non-copied article.
  2. Fair use claims need to be better and more skeptically examined than is now the case, but this can't reasonably be done within the context of speedy deletion. Such claims are now common for imges -- quite possibly too common. They are often made only after the copyright status of an image is challanged.
  3. Source issues. Unlike text, it is common for images to be reproduced unchanged in several sources, and there is no easy way to do a web search for instances of an image. Determining if a particualr URL is the original source of an image is much harder and more problematical than for text.
  4. Comparisions. It is trivial to determine if text is an exact copy of a source. In the case of an image it is less so, and different images, with different rights, can appear quite simialr (this particularly applies to photos of news events, where many shots are taken from very similar angles at much the same time). Thus determining whether a suspected image is a copy of a purported source is not something always feasible for a single editor or admin.
  5. Processing. An image may be rescaled, changed is size, croped or the like before being uplaoded, even when it seesm to be the "identical" image. If the uplaoder does not retain a copy of the changed version offline, then if an image is deleted but it is later shown to be properly released, or to be a valid fair use image, significant work might need to be doen. Unlike text, images can not currently be undeleted.

The above reasons are why I tend to oppose including images, or if they are included, to support a mandatory delay period for images (and perhaps for all items) deleted under this proposal. DES ^(talk) 18:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Mirrors

I have severe problems with the proposal, having a few times come close to putting material up for copyvio when it was merely bad written and had been mirrored. The safeguards against some admin speedying through the same natural error are these:

• No mirror will mirror us within 48 hours.

  Why not? It's perfectly feasible,

• Mirrored articles will be wikified

  Not necessarily; not if the original article isn't.

I intensely dislike discretionary forms of CSD, since they amount to almost unreviewable reliance on the judgment of an admin who has been wading through the slushpile of new articles. I wouldn't trust my own judgment if I'd been doing that. Septentrionalis 13:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I just deleted about 10 articles on the spot for a variety of reasons, I blocked a user yesterday, I am trusted to do that, there is no reason not to trust an admins judgement on whether it is a mirror or not. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 14:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

If you are in doubt about whether a site is a mirror or not, AIUI Wikipedia:Mirrors and Forks maintains a list of known mirrors. Thryduulf 10:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Message Box

This message box is proposed on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)

There, we're talking about file uploads, but I think this could also be used on a normal edit page. However, it should be as small and unintrusive as possible, i.e. a compact text message - but the STOP sign is good, IMHO. And, it should be above the edit box, not below! --Janke | Talk 13:44:24, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

The stop sign is reasonable, but I might suggest adjusting the text a bit just in case the editor actually does have permission or is contributing his own work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact, my proposal is that this appear at the top of both file upload and edit pages. The heading is extreme, but I think it's appropriate given what happens in practice. Bovlb 14:31:22, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

I think putting that on top of the edit page is too much. The fraction of edits which are copyvios is too small (in my opinion) to justify such a bold warning. Dragons flight 14:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Have you done new pages patrol recently? 8-) I also proposed that experienced editors be able to suppress it via CSS. Perhaps it should be just for article creation, and not for article editing. The proportion may be small, but I believe it is big enough to be very damaging to Wikipedia in several ways. Bovlb 14:56:18, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

YES! Display it only at page creation, not during "normal" edits - I have a feeling most text copyvios happen in such instances - but maybe I'm wrong? However, I really think it should be very prominent on file upload pages. --Janke | Talk 15:03:12, 2005-09-02 (UTC)

Okay--I misunderstood the purpose of the message box. I thought someone was suggesting it be used to notify people whose articles had been (speedy?) deleted as copyvios. Yes, I think it would be an excellent idea to have it appear whenever a new page is created. Displaying it for every edit would be a bit much. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This should definitely not appear at the top of every edit page. The text that is there is already too much, and we have to keep in mind that its size on the screen is magnified for people who still use 800x600 resolution. I wouldn't mind a short warning, but this box is waaay too much. — Dan | Talk 23:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself ... I'm going to repeat myself: "... violators know what they are doing. Not allowing copying without explicit permission is not some weird idiosyncrasy of Wikipedia; it is standard practice all over the world. This stuff is taught in elementary school. There is no excuse for not knowing about it, and if you know about it, there is no excuse for doing it." Which means no box is needed. — Nowhither 03:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Nowhiter, I think you are partially wrong. I suspect some violators do know what they are doing, but I strongly suspect that some don't. From personal experience, I had a friend who assumed that because he could freely download something off the internet that obviously he could take it and do whatever he wanted with it. In this case, we are talking about certain photographs and images. Obviously, "if they didn't want me to have them, then why did they put them online?" For whatever reason my friend knew that copying is bad but associated anything on the internet as being free to copy. I realize this is a sample size of 1 (and hence very poor statistics), but I would also have to assume that at least some of the people using the internet assume anything they can download is automatically free use. Dragons flight 04:21, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

No, no, No! All violators don't know what they are doing! See this: User_talk:PaddyBriggs#Lions_Team_1997 for an example of a copyvio exchange that started to get ugly, until I butted in. --Janke | Talk 07:43:36, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

Please also see this discussion: Mediawiki_talk:Newarticletext#Length of message. Dragons flight 16:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well, looking around, I have to agree that it appears many violators do not know what they are doing. However, I still hold that they have no excuse. Again, this is not some odd policy of Wikipedia; it is a worldwide standard. Also, I don't think that adding yet another notice will help anything. (See also the endless warnings found on any mass market product sold in the U.S. these days.) — Nowhither 20:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Summary of some criticisms and responses

Paraphrased from Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Preliminary_proposal.

• Some of the clauses are too subjective.

1) This criteria for speedy deletion is explicitly for patent copyvio material, and as with some of the other criteria for speedy deletion, the common sense of administrators has to be trusted.

2) Patent copyright violation is less subjective than patent nonsense, also a criteria for speedy deletion.

3) The combined effect of the clauses makes it difficult for anything other than text dumps from copyrighted websites to be deleted.

• How do we know the copied website is not just a wikipedia mirror?

1) A mirror could not possibly copy one of our articles in 48 hours.

2) The clause of almost or totally un-wikified text also makes this very unlikely.

• It doesn't allow for discussion with new editors who are actually the copyright holders, and haven't notified us of that fact.

1) It would also be unusual for a copyrighted work to be legally uploaded and the editor not make any assertion of permission.

2) If permission is not asserted, we cannot assume that we might have it.

3) By definition, it is easy for the material to be re-uploaded with the correct permissions.

• The listing on the WP:CP page allows for a cooling off period.

1) Wikipedia never keeps copyvio material, so one is not needed.

Voting

Thew proposal page now says "The wording of the proposal is fixed, since voting has started". Has it? where? if it hasn't I advcise removign thsi wording for now. i also advise announcing in advance the start of voting so that people are not taken by supise, and have a last chance to suggest changes in the wording. That was a seerious problem with the last set of CSD proposals. DES ^(talk) 14:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that was because i copied it from another proposal, I have ammended it now. Any suggested changes should be mentioned now! It is advertised in quite a few places, although we could set a date to start the vote, how about the 6th of september? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Notifying the submittor

There has not been much of a response to my earlier suggestiuon that the poropsal include a requirement to notify the content contributionr or uplaoder, at least when a talk page is available. Are you rejecting this suggested admendment? if so, why? DES ^(talk) 01:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

DES, I agree with you that this is generally a good idea, but I feel it is a little weird to add it as an amendment to this proposal, since I generally feel that notifying the uploader ought to be standard practice on all speedy deletions. I'd like to know how other people feel though. Dragons flight 16:28, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I want it on this proposal, because i think it is more important for this category than any other. An apparent copyvio can be a fine start to an article (or at least an acceptable start) with only meta-data changes, specifically with a properly authorized GFDL release. No other category of speey describes text which is at all likely to be acceptable without at least significant rewriting. Personally i would also favor this requirement for those other speedy criteria that might well be saved by a limited rewrite, particualrly A7, but I think it is most vital on this one, and this is the one currently up for discussion. DES ^(talk) 22:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I partially agree with you, i guess the things that put me off are 1) other speedies don't require this, although you put foward a good case on this point. and 2) it would be more time consuming to tell uploaders why it was deleted, but i suppose if we use a template it is much quicker. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 22:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a strong recomendation that we do so in the regular copyvio process, and {{nothanks}}, {{idw-cp}}, and {{idw-pui}} exist for this purpose. WP:PUI in particular regards a listing as invalid or incomplete unless the lister states that s/he has notified the uploader. I see no reason why a process that has less chance for review ought to be less careful to ensure that the uploader is notified. I have reported quite a number of copyvios, and i never found notifing the uploader with one of these templates onerous. DES ^(talk) 22:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

DES, suggest a wording for this and I'll see what I think. Dragons flight 22:39, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, on balance I think it is a good idea, as although they should know better, a warning will hopefully reduce the chances of them uploading more copyvio stuff in the future. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 22:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I have created User:DESiegel/Nothanks-sd. If this proposal passes, this would be moved to {{Nothanks-sd}} (or some better name if someone comes up with one). This is a template intended to be placed on the talk page of a user whose article has been tagged for speedy deletion under this proposal. The usage would be {{Nothanks-sd|pg=pagename|url=URL of online source}}. You can test it out from the current location, just remember to prepend "User:DESiegel/" inside the braces. Obviously the wording and format would be subject to discussion. Note that thius tempalte can be availabel and reccomended even if it si not required (as i propose below). DES ^(talk) 15:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I would propose adding the following text to the proposal: When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator using {{Nothanks-sd}} or an equivalent message. Before deleting any page under this criterion, an admin must verify that the user who created the page has been notifed with {{Nothanks-sd}} or an equivalent message, on that user's talk page. If the user was not logged in and had not used a consistant IP address, no notification is required. DES ^(talk) 15:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean all ip users dont need to be notified or just ones with inconsistent ip usage? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 15:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was that if there is any reasonable way to notify the user, notification should happen. A logged in user is easy. An IP user using a consistant address should be notified on the talk page associated with that IP address (and optionaly encouraged to register). But if the IP address seems to have been used only for a single edit by that user, there is no point to placing a notification on the IP talk page, because the relevant editor is unlikely to see it. Perhaps my wording above needs to be improved. DES ^(talk) 16:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I am hapy with this, also, having this would make me much happier about speedying copyvio images as dragons flight wants. If there is a consensus (i.e. if dragons flight agrees as well), then add it on. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Note, due to namespace issues a separate template would be needed for image notifications, but only a few words would need to be changed. That doesn't address the fair use questions, of course. DES ^(talk) 17:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

My apologies for delaying the discussion, but I am fairly busy at the moment, and will need another day or so to think about the arguments made here before making a response. Dragons flight 06:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Dragons flight, consider having a separate, and possibly more suitable, proposal for copyvio images, individually they would stand more chance of approval as well. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to stop fighting for the images, much as I might like to be able to speedy some of them. There are any number of images I come across that I know are hopelessly copyvio, but "I know it when I see it", certainly doesn't cut it and I can't see a way to get the criteria in a shape where it can dodge nearly all false deletes. If people have thoughts on that, maybe there can be a seperate proposal, but I don't see it right now. (Which may be a way of saying DES did too good a job of pointing out problems with image deletions  :-P ). Anyway, onto the other issue, notification. I would be inclined to cut the message down to just "When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator using {{Nothanks-sd}} or an equivalent message." If you feel you have to have more than that, I would ask that the "must" in sentence two be changed to "should". I don't like the idea that admins "must" do something procedural or it invalidates the deletion, that has a tendendcy for silly VfU fights. Since we are presumably not including images, the need for a "must" is also considerably decreased. I also think there should be some room for play to account for circumstances where someone has been warned about uploading copyvios and keeps doing it. I don't want to get in a situation where people complain they weren't warned "this time". I generally think admins should get to use some discretion here, even though the nominal case should be to have a specific warning was issued each time. Dragons flight 00:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

While I really think it would be better if submittors of copyvio content were warned every time (for one thing it would rapidly be come obvious who are our problem users, and further steps could be taken) I do take your point that we should not provide handles to wikilawyers. What would you think if we kept the wording directed at admins, as wella s that aimed at tagging editors, but replaced all uses of "must" by "should" -- that is, tagging editors should notify, and deleting admins should varify that notification has been done or do it themselves? Would this avoid the problem you foresee with the text above? DES ^(talk) 15:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I still think that would be unnecessarily verbose, but would be willing to accept it in the interest of moving forward. Dragons flight 04:50, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

Very well. Here is a proposed reveised text, tightened up just a bit: When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator using {{Nothanks-sd}} or an equivalent message. Before deleting any page under this criterion, an admin should verify that the page creator has been notifed -- if not, the admin should so notify. If the creator was not logged in and did not use a consistant IP address, such notification is unneeded. Will that do? DES ^(talk) 14:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Definitions

The current proposal uses the term "patent copyright violation" but does not define it. Either the term should be defined or it should be removed as redundant with the other parameters (which it probably is). Eric119 20:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Isnt it self defining? how would you define it? Martin - The non-blue non-moose 21:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, uh, how is it different from a non-patent copyright violation? Eric119 02:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

This isnt a lagal contract, we don't need to spell it out. It is just as well defined as other criteria for speedy deletion. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 09:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that's all right then. Eric119 02:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Mirrors 2

If we are limiting this to commercial content providers, does that make the clause about mirrors/48 hours/wikification redundant? I guess I am wondering how likely one of the wiki mirrors would be mistaken as a commercial content provider? Dragons flight 16:31, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Until I saw this, I was baffled about the mirror business. It seems unlikely that someone here would mistake a mirror for a site with original content. Many of them have even have "wikipedia" or "gnu" or "creative commons" on the page, which allows them to be more easily identified. -- Kjkolb 12:28, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I think it is unnecessary now. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 12:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you will find that a number of non-compliant mirrors do look remarkably like commercial content providers - look through Wikipedia:Forks and mirrors for some examples. DES ^(talk) 15:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

For example compare This link with Bird flu. DES ^(talk) 15:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

For another example, see this link. DES ^(talk) 15:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

For a third example compare Normalized number with this link. This site looks a lot like a commercial site, it has a .com address and a copyright notice. Only if you follow the "terms of use" link do you get any reference to wikipedia, adn i underdstand that even thsi was not present when this site first started mirroring wikipedia content. DES ^(talk) 16:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You've convinced me, the 48 hour/wikified rule will deal with these kind of problems very well. Martin - The non-blue non-moose 16:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

This seems unwise

Doesn't look like a good idea to me, for there are enough admins here who do not respect copyright law as it is and claim that things which are ineligible for copyright protection or are fair use are copyright infringments. Regrettably, in some cases, even repeated education with case cites and legal references hasn't changed the actions concerned, so I conclude that it's deliberate practice. In the face of such conduct and the unwillingness to remove the admin capability, the current process seems like the way to go. Jamesday 06:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

How often are cut n' paste jobs from commercial websites fair use or ineligible? Martin 08:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

250 edits

I'm not particularly comfortable with a 250 edit requirement before being eligable to vote. I think it's quite possible to be a valid contributing member of wikipedia well before the 250 edit mark. I personally was caught by this rule for the previous CSD vote, and I couldn't quite see why my opinion was less valid simply because I hadn't made as many grammatical corrections to articles as some others. I understand wanting to weed out sock puppets, but 250 seems a little excessive to me. For VfD, isn't the policy to consider sockpuppetry if they have fewer than 20 edits? 20 sounds a lot more reasonable to me, possibly 50. With 250, it also penalizes those who make fewer but more substantial edits, as some have been known to do. Fieari 21:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I copied and pasted it from the other proposals which is why it was 250, there was some disagreement though looking back, I've changed it to 50 now. thanks Martin 21:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no single policy on AfD/VfD. In some cases anon users with a single edit get counted, in other cases the closer enforces a rule of 100 edits or more, and in several cases the closer only decided what the rule would be when closing the debate. This is IMO worse than any clearcut rule would be. I think 50 is enough to weed out socks, in this case. DES ^(talk) 22:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the criteria shouldn't be "valid contributing member", but rather "veteran editor well familiar with WP procedure and policy". That correlates with edit count, not perfectly, but better than any other readily-veritable statistic. — Phil Welch 00:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

patent copyright violation

So that is patents and copyrights covered. What about other forms of intellectual property such as trademarks? Seriously, could we call it "obvious copyright violation" or "blatent copyright violation"? --Henrygb 21:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean, blatant copyvio sounds best and means same thing, i can't move it right now because it just says there was no response, i'll try later unless someone beats me to it. Martin 22:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Can we vote on this now?

~~ N (t/c) 20:12, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Fine with me, there don't seem to have been an signifanct commnts in the last few days. but it isn't my proposal. I suggest that the proponsnt pick start and end dates, and annouce the voting period in all the places that the proposal was annouced and any other relevant ones that anyone can think of. DES ^(talk) 20:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• I have removed "porn site" from the list of examples since that seems an unlikely source of copyvio articles (as opposed to images), if people want to suggest another example, be my guess. Otherwise I think it is good to go. Dragons flight 00:36, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• I don't see a stated time and date for the vote to close. i think this would be a good idea. I also think that the opening of the vote should be announced on the pump and elsewhere. DES ^(talk) 19:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• The page needs to be edited to change the date of vote-start: currently it reads 1 August, whereas voting seems to have started 17 September. Physchim62 10:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty of fixing this. Fieari 11:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Wording

• ...an admin should verify that the page creator has been notifed -- if not, the admin should so notify.

sounds archaic if not wrong. propose change to

• ...an admin should verify that the page creator has been notifed -- if not, the admin should do so.

--Zanaq 16:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC), Zanaq 17:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• As the drafter of this phrase, i would argue that it is in no way wrong. I do tend to use soemwhat more formal and perhaps even old-fashioned turns of phrase in soem cases, and I don't object to the change (I think this is partly due to the result of editing a previous longer version at the same time that notification was changed from "must" to "should"). DES ^(talk) 17:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• I went ahead and made the change, since it shortens the text and may improve its readability, and in no way changes the meaning. DES ^(talk) 17:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we close it now?

It seems like we have agreed on a new CSD (might I suggest A8?), since the vote goes 100 support/2 neutral/6 oppose. So, do we close the vote now? It has about an hour to go before the end date of October 1 comes, and unless a sock-flood comes, it won't dip under the 70% approval cut-off line. Titoxd 23:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks as though we do, as it's currently 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC). I guess we just wait until an admin gets around to it, probably Martin or DES. --Blackcap | talk 00:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to put up a notice saying that the voting has closed. --Blackcap | talk 05:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. Just write the final tally on there (Still 100/2/6). Titoxd 06:00, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It has been done. :) --Blackcap | talk 06:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way: It's actually 98/2/6—votes 27 and 87 are discounted. I'm going to go check and see if there are any others. --Blackcap | talk 06:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like that's it—I thought that support #64 (User:S.M.) was going to be cast out, but I was wrong. Not that it matters, this proposal clearly passes. --Blackcap | talk 06:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've tallied the votes, deleted the tag, added it to passed proposals, and someone's added it to WP:CSD. I'm not really sure if I've done the right thing, so if an admin or someone who's done this before sees that I've messed something up, please tell me. Hope this was the right place to be bold. --Blackcap | talk 05:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)