Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Advice for admins

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)[reply]

Be bold and deletions

?!? wrote: Two maxims: Be bold, but temper this with the avoidance of copyright paranoia. i.e. don't shirk from deleting violations (articles can always be got back, anyway, though images can't) but don't delete things without checking them properly just because someone listed them here. Not everything listed here is actually a violation: separating those that are from those that aren't is up to you.

Mentioning "be bold" in "Copyright problems/Advice for admins" is disingeous. The concept explained on "be bold" wikipedia is in CREATING material, not DELETING material.

In fact, copyright is not mentioned once in the Be bold article.

I disagree - being timid in dealing with copyright violations led to a copyright violation languishing for a year on Winter Soldier Investigation. Nobody would fix it. Eventually it was addressed, but a year's worth of editing was lost. Be Bold and fix the damn problems when you come across them. --Duk 02:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales said:

"Finally, we should never forget as a community that we are the vanguard of a knowledge revolution that will transform the world. We are the leading edge innovators and leaders of what is becoming a global movement to free knowledge from proprietary constraints. 100 years from now, the idea of a proprietary textbook or encyclopedia will sound as quaint and remote as we now think of the use of leeches in medical science." ---Free Knowledge requires Free Software and Free File Formats

I have bigger issues with the the goals of wikipedia and how it contradicts zealous volunteer copyright police like yourself. I don't want to waste time arguing about 2 sentences with you here.--Travb 23:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7 day delay

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)[reply]

What about WP:CP after taking care of an article?

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. — Kbh3^rd talk 04:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and remove the entry at WP:CP (see step 5). --Duk 04:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion reason

Is there any specific message that should be entered as the deletion reason when deleting a copyvio? Just saying "copyvio" (or similar) doesn't seem sufficient to indicate that it has been through WP:CP, checked that it is a real violation, etc. --TheParanoidOne 19:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]