Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal V (Copyright violations)
Appearance
Proposal V (Copyright violations)
The following case should be added to Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion:
- Any article that consists only of content in blatant, easily verifiable violation of copyright or which is not immediately verifiable as compatible with the GFDL, unless said article was submitted by a user or IP with legitimate contributions or has since been subsequently edited by another user.
- The creator must subsequently be informed on their talk page that such deletion has happened, with an external reference to the existing material, and instructions on how to prevent any recreation of the article from being deleted again with a wikilink to Wikipedia:Copyrights.
Votes
Agree
- BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ground 00:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Neutralitytalk 00:10, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Xtra 00:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Resolving this sort of copyvios by other means is a waste of time. Wikimol 00:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- ugen64 00:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Would make checking New Pages vastly easier. SimonP, 00:48, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- TwoOneTwo 00:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Chris 73 Talk 01:01, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Rje 02:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I hate copyright violations on Wikipedia, so I think this is one of the best proposals for expanding the speedy deletion policy. Scott Gall 03:00, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- cleduc (talk) 03:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Sc147 03:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ral315 03:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Antandrus 03:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ливай | ☺ 03:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- DJ Clayworth 05:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Korath (Talk) 05:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 08:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Jeff Knaggs
- Skysmith 09:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- RadicalSubversiv E 09:30, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Dysprosia 11:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Tuf-Kat 14:39, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Jayjg | (Talk) 17:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- hfool/Wazzup? 23:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC). Good if the bit about messages being left on talk pages is actually DONE. 'Sides, if it exists elsewhere for the mistake to be made, it can be remade if the contribution is shown to be legit.
- Anthony Liekens 00:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- ℘yrop (talk) 03:19, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- gK ¿? 03:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, please. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ryan! | Talk 10:42, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Gentgeen 11:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Xezbeth 11:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Alphax (talk) 12:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Tompagenet 13:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- We don't need a week to determine if something is a copyvio. Gamaliel 13:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Proteus (Talk) 17:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Disagree
- Most users are very bad at determining copyright status. These need to be reviewed or VFD'd. -- Netoholic @ 00:09, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
- Smoddy | Talk 00:12, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. -Ld | talk 00:13, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Needs checking each time - David Gerard 00:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- JRM 01:02, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
- ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 02:11, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Carnildo 02:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Peter O. (Talk) 02:52, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- TOR 03:41, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Adam Bishop 04:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Without a definition of what "easily verifiable" actually is, this will likely end with admins deleting things that they think "look like" copyvios. Going on VfD at least encourages the research the originating deleter does not always make.Dr Zen 05:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Ben Brockert 05:50, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Slowking Man 07:40, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- "Appears elsewhere" is not in itself proof of copyright infringement. iMeowbot~Mw 07:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Rafał Pocztarski 10:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It is not that time-consuming to list it at WP:CP, and it should catch any mistakes+ensure the author gets a chance to comment/understand on what is happening. Thue | talk 11:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- We already have a copyright problems process. However copyvio'd articles on a topic which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia anyway would be another matter. David Johnson [T|C] 12:50, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I've seen cases of reverse infringement. Dori | Talk 14:31, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- How do we know that the poster of the alleged copyvio isn't also the copyright holder of the item that appears elsewhere? Innocent until proven guilty, and all that stuff. WP:CP gives posters a chance to defend themselves. P Ingerson 14:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The existing copyvio process, I think, covers this problem without needing SD coverage. And the current procedure allows the opportunity for the copyvio to be recast as a nonviolative source page. CSD procedures should be separate and independent of the copyvio procedure as they cover disparate sets of problems. Kelly Martin 17:52, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- wheresmysocks 17:53, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree with the proposal for reasons cited by users User:P Ingerson and User: Kelly Martin. Phils 18:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- This is a non-issue; we already have a process foe dealing with copyright violations. Dan100 19:32, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Peacenik 20:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- RickK 21:21, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC). The current Copyright problems page works fine. But I disagree with any copyright problems being sent to VfD -- the copyright problems page is the appropriate place for these.
- --Mononoke 23:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- BSveen 00:44, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Frazzydee|✍ 04:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC): No way. Too easy to make mistakes.
- The current process appears to be working well. —Charles P. (Mirv) 06:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Copyvios are not urgent, no need for CSD. jni 10:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- No need to hurry. -- Naive cynic 13:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- – Quadell (talk) (help) 14:10, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- What if it's posted by the original author? Any chance for appeal? Mailer Diablo 16:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see the problem with the existing WP:CP process. David Iberri | Talk 19:41, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Copyvios should be dealt with at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because sometimes it is not always clear whom the copyright holder is and whether that is actually the prson posting the article. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 20:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Keith D. Tyler [flame] 20:55, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) The amount of work required to verify copyvio (and more importantly, license violation) cannot / should not be done in speedy. Google phrase search alone is not proof of copyvio. Review is required.
- Shane King 01:31, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) The current process for this works pretty well.