Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Advice for admins

message: This is to give newly arriving admins the help I could have done with when I started work on this (instead I had to pester User:Geni for instructions). Any additions? --Ngb ?!? 16:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: I found Eric Stern on new page patrol and tagged it as a copyvio. The uploader has submitted a revised version. Assuming I can verify that the enw version ios not a copyvio, is there any reason to wait 7 days before delting the infringing version and repalcign it with the revised version? The infrigign version was a direct copy&paste, and since a revised version wa ssubmitted it seems there will be no claim of permission -- besides the revision is more NPOV anyway. DES (talk) 20:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 day delay 

message: I followed the procedure to delete an article and replace it with new, non-infringing text on the article/Temp page. All well and good.  But should anything be done with its entry on WP:CP?  I struck it out and added an HTML comment about what I did.  I doubt that's the proper procedure since the page isn't full of stricken lines, but I didn't want another admin to come along later and think the new text is the old, infringing text and delete it.  (I'm new to this function – I'd put up the original copyvio notice, and the author of the new text notified me that a new article was ready.)  Thanks.  — Kbh3rdtalk 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and remove the entry at WP:CP (see step 5). --Duk 04:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about WP:CP after taking care of an article? 

message: Why has Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Log not been updated since May 31, 2006? Is the bot that kept it up no longer running? Is this a problem, or are they no longer considered important? (If so, the language in item 7 should probably be rewritten. --MCB 22:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would gather people stopped updating it because it is unnecessary and tedious. The logs are still there, following the same naming format and you can get at them just by typing in with the right date, there just isn't a page with a list. —Centrx→talk • 02:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to the logs? 

message: This has been addressed in a couple of ways here, but I'm still cloudy on accepted process.  Let's say you have a situation like this: article permalink Used hardware; talk page permalink Talk: Used hardware.  The article is tagged for speedy deletion, a proper 'holdon' has been lodged, and the author indicates on the talk page that copyright permission is being pursued.  Now, my instinct based on what I've read is that I should a) delete the article, b) do not delete the associated talk page, c) inform the author that undeletion should be pursued once copyright permission is secured and confirmed (with reference to Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed).  An alternative approach would be to PROD the article with the reason being 'copyright permission being pursued by author - delete in proper timeframe should permission not be confirmed by PROD expiry'.  I recently binge-deleted about 10 articles that were copy-vios that could eventually reappear here after permission is secured and ... I feel a little dirty about that, so I wanted to confirm what the specific recommended path is as of the end of 2006 (this assumes that a non-copyvio version is not available in the history).  Thanks for your advice. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark it as a  and list it per the Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions. Since it's a copyvio, the text shouldn't be used until the permission is received. Therefore, copyvio is a better solution then prod as it blanks the page and is the "proper" process for copyvios anyway. You can also list the fact that the editor is attempting to get permission on the log page. The people reviewing the copyvio listing will probably pay more attention to that then the folks cleaning up prods. -- JLaTondre 02:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you ... WP:CP has clear instructions. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This page is advice for dealing with copyvios that have been listed. Also, most of the people who say they have permission are either lying or the copyright holder does not actually give permission under the GFDL when its freeness is explained to them. —Centrx→talk • 00:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to clarify process 

message: I just deleted a copyvio'ed section from Adam and Eve (found the same section before the edit that had replaced it with copyvioed text and restored it). The section was added in  - more than a month ago. That means the offending text will be visible in the article history over 50-odd revisions. Does anyone care? --Alvestrand 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would purge the copyvio. Delete the article and restore the revisions before the copyvio was added. Garion96 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: April 15 to May 29 is now missing from the log of Adam and Eve. Thanks for the advice! --Alvestrand 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 're welcome. Thanks for helping out here. Garion96 (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If there were non-trivial intervening additions to the article in those 50-odd revisions then this method does not work because the authors of the page need to be in the page history. —Centrx→talk • 23:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice on partial copyvios and deleting 

message: The advice is to revert to clean version if possible, else delete the article. What if the 1st edit was the copyvio, but useful additional material was since added and we know that the topic is notable ? Deletion of the article would seem wrong (it is a notable topic), but clearly bulk of article needs to go, leaving just a stub.
The article in question is Evans syndrome (it is a real condition), my attack on its wikistyling and referencing/footnotes were these (My increasing realisation something wrong with article layout, led me to try to fix the references and the Maddison Foundation link proved a total rendition of the original article). David Ruben  Talk  03:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the useful additional material be distinct paragraphs or perhaps even distinct sentences, then it can be included in a new stub. Otherwise, and perhaps even then, the article is a derivative work of the original copyrighted work and remains under that original copyright. —Centrx→talk • 20:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, a point I had not considered... I'll have a go at marking up a fresh stub for the topic - thanks :-) David Ruben  Talk  01:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clear copyvio on article creation, but useful edits since

message: I've encountered a situation recently where another admin seemed unclear on the rewriting done at the temporary talk page. I wonder if this document needs to more openly address the GFDL rights of contributors. A temporary "do-over" can't use text contributed by other editors; otherwise, when we delete those foundational edits, we've violated copyright ourselves. This, of course, because Wikipedia doesn't own copyright to material hosted here. Contributors do. They merely license its use and reuse for others under the terms of GFDL so long as authorship history is maintained. Deleting that history is a problem. :) I've done a minor tweak to this document to address that, but I begin to wonder if this fact needs more explanation, the already-complicated nature of this notwithstanding. Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be allowable to reference the relevant authors and dates in the edit summary when such additions are made, though it might be substantial work to look through all the revisions for every change. —Centrx→talk • 02:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision and GFDL requirements

message: Just want to give praise for the new shape of this page. Compared to what it was when I dabbled in copyright backlog handling several months ago, it's a huge improvement. I'm sure new people who join the backlog crew (once Moonriddengirl stops doing such a fantastic job of keeping the backlog down) will find this to be enormously helpful.
Excellent work! --Alvestrand (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos