* [[:Gulf Petrochemicals and Chemicals Association]], claimed sent on September 3rd
* [[:Gulf Petrochemicals and Chemicals Association]], claimed sent on September 3rd
Both are now listed at [[WP:CP]] under today's listing. Thanks. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ([[User talk:MLauba|talk]]) 06:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Both are now listed at [[WP:CP]] under today's listing. Thanks. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ([[User talk:MLauba|talk]]) 06:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
:Hi. I'm not able to check right now, although I'm told that my real computer (as opposed to this laptop thing) may be returning to me late today. (Please, please!) I'll ask [[User:Stifle]]. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 12:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 21 days
Stifle's audits
I have recently completed my audit of the non-free music video screenshot category for inappropriate images. If anyone has any suggestions of the next image category/ies I should audit, please suggest them. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has struck me that we must have a load of copyright-ineligible logos tagged as non-free when they are, in fact, public domain. Whether retagging them is a useful occupation when the status quo is not a problem remains to be seen though. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]15:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if it's possible, but it would be practical for book covers to see if articles about books have more than one cover. Quite often a cover is replaced with the first edition cover and then the old one is kept for decorative purposes. I already cleaned up dozens of those. Garion96(talk)10:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book covers suggestion is a good one. I don't see the logo one as hugely productive, seeing as the images are neither copyright violations nor in any danger of being deleted. In the end I have taken up magazine covers for now. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could also be linked from that message under the edit box - where it says "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages or images." Currently only "public domain" is wikilinked. Rd232talk19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would work for me. I know several others who have spoken here in the past have also expressed a wish that we could prevent some of this, rather than always playing cleanup (notwithstanding that we might work ourselves out of a job. :D) --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Out of a job"? That's optimistic! I'd just be pleased if it made any difference to the workload at all... :) NB I don't know where to make the change, which bit of MediaWiki it is. Rd232talk20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like optimism. It's a happy place. :D Somebody once told me where that was, but I've forgotten. I'll see what I can find out. Hmm. Maybe somebody at the HD will know.... --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! The copy paste page adds a tremendously helpful link. Nicely done, Rd232. I like the strong and succinct emphasis on "Do not copy-paste." At times it seems our CV messages are more directed towards obtaining permissions and releases rather than first emphasizing the "do not bother." I am thinking especially of autobiographies, resumes and promotional materials which will need to be rewritten anyway and sourced elsewhere to meet basic criteria. A greater emphasis by WP on "Do not copy-paste" except in very, very, very limited situations can be a great preventative tool. — CactusWriter |needles06:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Need clarification between article space and talk page space. I have run into users who believe that talk space is immune from copyright concerns, only article space ie. it's ok to copy-paste entire sections of books into talk pages for discussion purposes. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, article space is given more allowances for copyright concerns: you can point out to them that WP:NFC, for instance, only allows non-free images on article space. There's no exception at WP:C for other project spaces. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs admin eyes, repeated re-addition of copyrighted content, one of the contributors claims permission, has been advised on how to proceed. I'm at 3RR, have requested temporary full page protection. MLauba (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off to look into it. However, note that you are protected from sanctions for 3RRing over copyvio. If it's borderline, I can particularly understand your wanting input, though. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. One thing I would recommend if you find yourself in this situation: if an editor is warring to restore material, use {{copyvio}} to blank the article while you discuss it. At this point, it seems that you have dialogue going now. I'll enter into that and am watching the article. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An upcoming feature allows admins to perform history deletions (redactions as the policy now calls it) better, faster and safer than the hack you're currently using. Copyvio being one of the criteria to apply the policy, your input would probably be very much welcome at WT:REVDEL. MLauba (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:SCV - this probably may need a history cleanup but I'll be damned if I know what to keep and what to toss out. Would appreciate another pair of eyes on that article's history (it's currently not displaying any vios BTW, so I don't see a point in listing it at CP). MLauba (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ML. I took a look at this. It appears that no other editor added copyrightable text other than the original uploader and the copyvio text was deleted by the contributor after it was listed at CP. To clean the history, than I would remove everything prior to the last Sept 29 reversion by the original contributor and selectively delete the one mistaken restoration by another editor that came directly afterward. However, for the moment, I've added the cclean template to the talk page and that should be enough. Unless there is an actual complaint about the copyvio text in the history, than cleaning the history is optional. Hope this makes some sense. Cheers. — CactusWriter |needles10:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second opinion
I like to ask for a second opinion about possible copy vio's detected in the articles Thomas A. DeFanti, Werner Ulrich and G. A. Swanson. I have the impression that the current detection, not by me, is over the top. It is my understanding that things like the biography section and the listing of publications for example can't be considered a copyvio according to WP:Plagiarism because both are sort just neutral representation of facts. I used this assumption to selected possible copyvio's in my other work.
First, WP:Plagiarism has nothing to do with WP:Copyrights and should not be read as giving any indication of what you may or may not use under the copyrights policy. Plagiarism and its handling on Wikipedia are matters of consensus. Copyright is a matter of US law, and the policy is devised to help keep us compliant with it.
That said, a list of publications is not a copyvio if you are not reflecting human creativity. You can reproduce a complete list of publications. You can reproduce a list of publications between year x and year y. You can produce a limited list of your own devise, but you cannot reproduce a limited list if it reflects creativity on the part of the original compiler: say, "the best of."
I'm afraid that material doesn't get clearance just because it's listed in a biography section. While a sentence like "Thomas DeFanti was born in Kentucky" would be a bare presentation of facts, text like "In the 20 years has been at University of Illinois at Chicago, DeFanti has amassed a number of credits, including: use of EVL hardware and software for the computer animation produced for the Star Wars movie", at [1], is certainly copyrightable, and I'm afraid that your "In the next 20 years at the University, DeFanti has amassed a number of credits, including: use of EVL hardware and software for the computer animation produced for the Star Wars movie" infringes on that. Complicating matters further, copyright covers not only the language used, but less tangible elements such as selection of facts. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing may clarify that. --Moonriddengirl(talk)01:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish Mdd could be persuaded that the least frustrating way (for him) to reduce the dimensions of the problem might be for him to permit the articles that I, or anyone, may have reduced more than he likes to just sit, for a while. Any victims of "current detection" that may be "over the top" don't need to be addressed for copyvio, That was the whole point of my "over the topness". There's no harm done to the topics if they're simply "stubbified" or the equivalent. They can always be beefed up at Mdd's leisure another time. (I mean, if he had gone on vacation for a few weeks, he might have come back to find all kinds of activity from other editors that would distress him, on all sorts of grounds. I have nothing against him asking for "second opinions" from you on anything he likes, and it's none of my business, really. But he's trying to keep too many plates spinning at once. I know I shouldn't comment any more on his work, but I had to say this, because I really am concerned for him, for reasons beyond the copyvios.
I hope you understand Moonriddengirl, I'm not questioning you, in regard to your giving him detailed considerations of particular examples (god knows every one of these examples is an education to me) but I wish Mdd wouldn't worry himself so much about the history of every page, when there's so much to consider on the current pages of the articles he's produced. It speaks well of him that he's so determined to re-learn so much stuff. I think maybe he could afford to relax a little and not sweat the details so much; he can do that anytime from the perspective of a clean slate. It's just easier that way all around. Bacrito (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: Talking about specific cases helps me understand, as I did with MRG about Timothy F. H. Allen, see here two days ago. In that particular comment, I was insecure about if I could have restored the part of the articles. Now I think, I shouldn't have reverted that section at all, but waited for MRG's comment first. At Thomas A. DeFanti, Werner Ulrich and G. A. Swanson article, I sort of have similar problems. Instead of acting on my own (as I did in the Timothy F. H. Allen article) I asked for a second opinion. The main reason is that I don't want to make the same (mis)step at the Timothy F. H. Allen article again : reverting without asking first. MRG comment made me realize now, I indeed (as B suggests) "let it sit for a while".
More in general: I indeed still have problems getting focused on both on the bigger picture? the reasons why? the procedures how to solve them? an getting focused on the individual particular problems? what I can do? and what I cannot do at this moment to fix the problem? I just want to get the drill right in a "least frustrating way". Thank you MRG, thanks B for your comment here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the big picture: the first thing we need to do is swiftly eliminate the publication of all copyrighted text from these Wikipedia articles. The reason is that so long as this material is published, we are actively in violation of a United States law and one that could put the whole project in jeopardy. While Wikipedia currently is protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, our right to do so has been challenged before. If it is ever legally successfully challenged, our best defense is going to be demonstrating that we exercise due diligence in preventing and dealing with copyright infringement.
This is why I have suggested that if you cannot swiftly revise material, it should be blanked with {{copyvio}}, as I did with the article at Mathematical diagram. It is to be hoped that this material can be repaired soon, but ultimately Wikipedia is better off with no article on a subject than one that could lead to its being successfully prosecuted for contributory copyright infringement.
Typically, we address these situations by creating a list of potentially problematic articles and evaluating them. If the list is large, we may presumptively remove text by a contributor who has shown widespread misunderstanding of copyright. As Wikipedia:Copyvio says, "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major prose contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." If contributors are doing this, the best thing you can do is continue evaluating other articles. The ones that have been stubbed or presumptively cleaned can then later be evaluated at your leisure so that you can return material that has been written in your own words.
I think asking feedback is a good idea, if it can clear up misunderstandings such as that material in a biography section does not represent a copyright concern. However, it is probably not a good use of time right now to spend too much time evaluating material that has already been removed. You have been prolific, and there is a lot of work ahead: [2].
Again, the big picture: first step is to identify and remove or repair the copyrighted text. Repair should be the goal only if it can be done swiftly. If it cannot, removal should be the first effort, followed by repair at a more comfortable schedule. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I have continued remove and/or repair copyrighted text in my thematical article. I will continu tomorrow, and when I finish maybe discuss some further. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely an autobiography, was stubified by Thel, then reverted multiple times by a Russian IP (most likely Moiseyev, they have the same behaviour of blanking their userpage after getting warned), reverted to last clean version. Might warrant a quick revision delete to Thel's stub and removing the subsequent IP edits to make re-reversion a bit more difficult. MLauba (talk) 08:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it from the article talk and deleted the article's history. I've also cautioned the newly registered contributor participating about COI and removed some inappropriate material added to the newly cleaned article. I've put a cclean at the article talk. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright cleaners in crisis
Hi, guys. We are developing quite the backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys, and I'd like some help brainstorming solutions, pretty please. The list just keeps getting bigger, and we've got lists that aren't completed from, well, an embarrassingly long time ago. New ones come up and the old ones get left, and occasionally I find myself working on one that isn't even included here but managed elsewhere. I know many of the people likely to read this are already very busy with WP:SCV and WP:CP (which I think take precedence). How can we get more attention to this problem and more people involved in cleanup?
I've considered that perhaps we should propose to move the page into the main space and out of the umbrella of the project. That might make it clearer that all interested contributors are welcome, and it would also allows us to drop a "backlogged" on it...for whatever good that might do. :) I'm not sure, honestly, it would do any good at all.
I'm trying to think where we could publicize this to attract contributors who are willing and able to help.
I've also wondered if we need to propose stronger handling of multiple article copyright infringers. I'm not talking about blocking; I'm talking about presumptively deleting their contributions. Even though Wikipedia:Copyvio permits it, I generally do not delete content without at least verifying some copying. But, obviously, this approach is highly time consuming and is contributing to this backlog. I'm thinking about a template, perhaps. I've tested one here and here. What do you think? And how many copyvios do we need from a contributor before we take this step? I figure that it is important to identify the contributor, not to embarrass him or her, but because it will simplify for other users identifying where the problem text was introduced. If we have to add diffs, it will take considerably more time, particularly since contributors contribute incrementally to articles over many, many edits. (Currently, the template is at User:Moonriddengirl/cclean2.)
First of all, I've found Special:Nuke quite effective when dealing with editors who introduce a large number of copyvios in a short period of time - but of course this won't help with long-term contributors. Also, I like the somewhat biblical-sounding opening of that template, M. Seriously though, I think we need to raise awareness - moving the pages out of a WikiProject subpage could be a first step, if we can then post notices at AN and WP:VP to find willing editors, I think we could make progress. I mean even as part of this WikiProject I'm barely aware of the cleanup's existence. I'm not sure if we can get it added to some of the more visible areas, such as {{Wikipedia copyright}} and the Community bulletin board. Do you think it would be viable to get an article in Wikipedia:Signpost covering the project? I notice that they have a "WikiProject report" this week, and Signpost is delivered to quite a few talk pages etc. – Toon20:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since we're talking about mounting backlogs, here's some additional news: following the discussion at WT:RFA#WP:FPPR, I asked Coren to investigate whether he could sic CSB on any newly patrolled revision so that we start having a way to systematically crack down on some of those vios that get introduced after article creation but can sit there for years unnoticed.
The downside is of course that we'll have a lot more to check out.
Also, there seems to be a lot of our members who have stopped posting here or outright vanished, and aside from Stifle, it's only us text copyvio people participating here at all? Before we try and get covered in the WikiProject section of the Signpost, we may want to try and conduct a roll call. MLauba (talk) 07:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having CSB check the newly patrolled pages is a good idea. It's easier to deal with a copyvio that is fresh than one that has had subsequent edits applied. I'm a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify and check in on newly tagged (undated tag) articles and often find new article being copied. It's especially prevalent with Myspace pages for bands. -- Whpq (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for feedback, all. :) I agree with Whpq that fresh copyvios are easiest to deal with (and even with multiple article infringers, since as Toon notes Nuke can help then), and I appreciate your taking that step with Coren, MLauba! I suspect burnout is a big problem in this field, MLauba, as Garion noted at your RfA. I empathize. :/ Every time I start to feel it, I try to do something about it: like, say, launching a project or suggesting we take investigations community wide. :D Even if we're down in active membership, I think a signpost article would probably be a good idea, as it might bring the more people we so desperately need. :) But maybe we should try launching the Investigations first so that our information is up to date. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) My immediate thought when reading Mrg's first sentence to this section was that we need to take a stronger stance in deleting the material. Our efforts are most often directed toward keeping the text. We spend considerable amounts of time explaining how to obtain permission, how to rewrite articles and, more often than not, simply finding other references and rewriting the text ourselves. These intentions our wonderful and are fundamental to the entire project. However, while copyright backlogs are overflowing, I'm afraid that the nice intentions must become secondary to prudent action.
When it comes to the multiple abuse contributor, I would agree with a strong presumptive stance. Mrg's templates are a good first whack, but I am also concerned about the accusatory tone. We should be firm about cleaning the mess, but I do worry about pummeling someone in the public stockade. I guess more emphasis on deleting the text (possibly by referencing a discussion at CV) and less on the particular editor.
In most cases it seems the multiple abuser creates a set of articles belonging to a particular project. (Let's say four or more articles). I'm uncertain of the current procedure, but it might be a good idea to notify the project about the article set, naming the articles, and state firmly that the text will need to be deleted unless project editors can clean it up. Drawing in editors who are particularly interested in the specific material is often key in finding help. Toward that end we may also try to build a recruitment system in which editors within particular projects declare themselves as "copyvio specialists" -- editors willing to handle clean up on articles within their area of interest. They can be notified when something within their expertise needs attention. — CactusWriter |needles15:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not want the template to be misused. :/ But I also want to keep it simple; having to add a diff for the contributions removed would slow the process considerably. What about if it were edited to link to a cleanup page? That way, only contributors who actually have a cleanup listing would be noted by the tag, and it wouldn't have to include their names. I like the idea of recruiting project members. With recent issues, the contributions of the Gastropod and Opera projects are exemplary. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just had an evil thought... add something to the copyvio template that generates an article alert for the corresponding wikiproject... MLauba (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... not such an evil thought. How about involving that Article Rescue Squad group? They consistently flock to Afd articles that are tagged with the rescue template. And, yes, the link to another page on the template would be enough to soften it for me. — CactusWriter |needles15:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! As for linking to another page, it'll partially depend on where that page winds up. For now, I suppose, I can presume this namespace. Hmm. I'll go poke. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, MRG asked me to take a quick look at this. I must agree unfortunately, as I've said in the past, that the only way to cope with the backlogs is indiscriminate reversion or deletion of all of the contributor's major prose article edits.
I've come up with a proposal for a process that I tentatively call "All contributions for deletion", intended for users who have such an extensive history of copyright violations or other furtive problems that their contributions cannot be trusted. It works like this:
Anyone can nominate a user. A subpage is created for that user describing their history of problems, number of edits, when and how the problems were uncovered, and what action is recommended (generally, a block and deletion of all contributions). A notice will be placed on ANI announcing the discussion.
A discussion proceeds for 7 days on whether all contributions of the editor should be removed, during which the contributor themselves and any other user can participate in the discussion.
If there is consensus around removing their contributions:
The subpage will be updated to include a link to their list of contributions, the user's status (banned, being mentored, rehabilitated, whatever), and the status of the cleanup effort for that user.
Someone will go through all their significant article contributions and revert or delete all of their changes, linking to the deletion discussion for justification, and updating the status as they go along.
This is intended to address a few problems with the current approach. First of all, there's a separation between the drama-ful announcement of a long-term copyviolator, and the less spectacular clean-up effort. Often long ANI threads proceed about a user, but then everybody on ANI forgets about it. We want to keep those people around for the cleanup by making sure the status page is on their watchlist. Second, this legitimizes the dramatic action that you have to take in removing all of a contributor's contributions, and avoids the inevitable conflict where somebody gets upset and tries to stop you and you have to stop and explain. Additionally, anyone who notices the changes can easily see the full discussion and current status and can jump in if they're interested, and you can post notices linking to the subpage on project pages.
Thanks for coming by, Derrick. :) Since I stopped by your talk page, there's been some additional sectioning below. I point it out in case you missed it. :) Generally speaking, I like this idea, although I think 7 days is probably too long. I suspect that 3-5 days is plenty for generating sufficient evidence to make a determination and more may simply extend the drama. It still puts a lot of pressure, though, on the "someone" who goes through their significant contributions. Ideally, we need teams to help out with this. Extricating their contributions from later modifications can be a bear, although it's still simpler than checking said contributions for copyvio and then doing it. :P I would suggest, though, that we might minimize the drama by a vetting process such as we had been discussing below--perhaps something like SPI. Perhaps, looking at the rough at User:Moonriddengirl/Contributor copyright investigations, "all contributions for deletion" might be the clean-up phase? What do you think? (There's also a draft of a template, User:Moonriddengirl/cclean2) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Launching Investigations as an independent entity
I thought I might be a good idea to separate this out. Of course, this would need village pumping before any action is taken, but I wanted to get some thoughts here before going ahead with it. I've mildly tweaked the template (including de-biblifying it, which gave me a hearty laugh :D) and added usage notes: User:Moonriddengirl/cclean2. Here it is in action (and here, without username). I'd like to make it as clear and concise as possible and would welcome help there. I'd also like to know if the usage caution I've placed seems clear enough. I've been around the Wikipedia world long enough to know that this would be abused. :/ In fact, I wonder if we should add a parameter to link it to a multiple article infringement investigation to prevent its being misused? And perhaps it should not be applied until an administrator has confirmed multiple article infringement at said investigation?
I presume that the investigation listing would be a linked subpage of WP:CP. Right now it doesn't really seem to warrant being a separate page, as there are only 10...and the first of those I would remove before moving. But I really suspect that if this is adopted and publicized, that number will grow. I was thinking of requesting a format like, say, the following:
Verifiable examples will save some wasted time, since this is obviously subject to abuse. Are three articles sufficient evidence to launch a contribution check? I guess this is kind of wandering into territory like suspected sock puppetry. (Investigations should be much easier; cleanup much harder.)
The template looks fine with me. For the rest, and I know this is going into WP:CREEP and WP:BURO, I'm wondering whether we shouldn't have something much more formalized like WP:SPI? I also state this because I have a hunch that if CSB starts running on patrolled revisions (once these are implemented) we may discover several thousands of year old vios. Having a "professional" process, ideally with separate clerks to determine if a full scale investigation is required then run the contributor listing software and create the investigation page may, possibly, offset part of the workload. MLauba (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and can'o'worms: Multiple infringer, adds big chunk of text in 2005, bid chunk of text gets edited over and over until nothing of the chunk remains but what we have is an unauthorized derivative work... MLauba (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding potentialy scanning newly patrolled revisions, surely there would still be the problem of the thousands of WP mirrors being picked up - the same reason that CSB doesn't scan existant articles at the moment? It's pretty difficult to use a bot to compare old articles as many are mirrored within hours. – Toon16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I suspect CSB II will need some additional exclusion lists as well as one rule to see if there's an url on the alleged source that points back to wikipedia.
That being said, assuming we do not run a CSB II on newly patrolled revision because of the mirrors, we're going to face another difficulty: the policy calls for reviewers to also check for copyvios. Without CSB II, we either limit reviewers to a slow grind and an extremely small group of editors to handle 3+ million articles, or we in practice moot the copyvio policy because running every single revision to patrol through Google is something no reviewer is going to do past their first week.
Personally, I'd rather have a mounting backlog listed for copyvio investigation than having several thousands of volunteers blissfully validating standing copyvios over and over until an article gets nommed for GA or FAC. MLauba (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template alteration
Okay. This version links to the copyright cleanup subpage, so we'd have to create a standard heading for that. I can do that. Or find somebody who can. Once we know what the namespace would be. It looks like this. The username parameter is now mandatory, and currently the usage is {{subst:User:Moonriddengirl/cclean2|USERNAME}}. What might we call this cleanup page? Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations? Wikipedia:Copyright investigations? I'd probably house the template at Template:cci if the former. I prefer it not only because CCI is available (and CI is not) but because it seems a little clearer distinction from CP. OTOH, CI is simpler. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CCI has my vote. BTW, to forestall some of the objections we had when we first launched the contrib check subpage, I'd make it policy that any denied case (in other words insufficient evidence to launch a full contrib investigation) and any closed case (in other words, a case where an investigation was launched and then completed) be archived and then immediately revision deleted / redacted (can't wait till that functionality goes live) to only show the archive header with the decision / finding of fact. That way, we retain the ability to go back and verify if something requires it, but on the other hand, the innocent don't have the allegations stand, and the reformed won't keep carrying the baggage forever. We should also make it clear that frivolous requests are a severe breach of NPA and can lead to blocking or even banning.
I think that's the way to bring people on board. As the last round of this argument has shown, some people unfortunately consider socking a much more severe offense than repeated copyvios. So we have to make sure they're not getting turned away by the proposal. MLauba (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I, too, worry about its potential for misuse, which is why I put the caution on the template. Unfortunately, though, I think we've got pretty clear evidence that there is need. :( --Moonriddengirl(talk)19:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
