MacphersonWiki:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/Blatant copyvio material

This is a part of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal.

The problem

One of wikipedias main problems, alongside NPOV and vandalism, is the importation of copyrighted material. Although this is dealt with at WP:CP at present, there is a lot of wasted time and effort in this process, which is reflected by the fact that there are in the region of 1000 listings on that page at present; it is akin to WP:VFD having to vote on every article to be deleted, i.e. we could vfd every article, and it would work, but it would be a massive waste of time.

This proposal is similar to the failed Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/14, but aims to be stricter and less subjective (and less subjective than existing speedy criteria), while also dealing with the other reasons for oppostion as well. These are watertight criteria that would allow some material that is a blatant copyright violation to be speedy deleted. This proposal is not meant to replace the current system, but reduce the inefficiency, this would mean articles where the copyright situation is more ambiguous can have more attention. It would be a requirement that the administrator provides the url of the material source in the "reason for deletion", and if material is repeatedly uploaded, it would be asked that it be dealt with in the current way (through WP:CP).

The proposal

The following shall be a criterion for speedy deletion.

An article that is a blatant copyright violation and meets these parameters:

• Material is unquestionably copied from the website of a commercial content provider (e.g. encyclopedia, news service).
• 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 diminish mirror problem).

Notification: When tagging a page for deletion under this criterion, a user should notify the page's creator using wording similar to {{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 do so. If the creator was not logged in and did not use a consistent IP address, such notification is unneeded.

Votes

This proposal is no longer open for voting. Voting closed on 06:02, October 1, 2005 (UTC).

Support

1. Martin 09:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
2. ~~ N (t/c) 00:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Geni 11:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
4. Extreme lesbian support! --Phroziac ^(talk) 13:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
5. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 14:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
6. I'll buy that. It would relieve a lot of the unnecessary load on WP:CP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
7. I was initally rather dubious about this proposal. But several of my suggestions were accepted during the discussion phase, and I now think most of the problems have been removed. I think it is unlikely to do harm and it may well do some good. DES ^(talk) 19:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
8. nice. -Ravedave 20:33, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
9. Sounds useful. Paul August ☎ 20:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
10. SimonP 20:46, 17 September 2005 (UTC), would make going through New Pages a much easier task.
11. Certainly worth a try --Doc (?) 20:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
12. Dragons flight 20:53, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
13. R. S. Shaw 21:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
14. NSR (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
15. ErikNY 22:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
16. Eric119 23:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
17. Yes, but should say "Uploader makes no assertion of permission, ownership or fair use, and none seems likely." Bovlb 23:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

    I think "ownership" falls under "permission"... it should be spelled out, but there's no harm in it not being. ~~ N (t/c) 00:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

    If it is from a commercial website, "ownership" isn't enough, there needs to be an explicit GFDL release or a plausible fair use claim, so "permission" covers the matter. It can use {{GFDL-self}} if the uplaoder is also the owner. DES ^(talk) 00:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

    I agree that ownership may fall under permission, but it's best to be as clear as we possibly can be. I agree that ownership may not be enough to avoid deletion, but it should be enough to avoid speedy deletion. Bovlb 04:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

18. Support Fieari 00:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
19. Support--nixie 01:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
20. Support--Aranda56 01:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
21. Support--Carnildo 04:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
22. Support; absolutely. Save us a lot of trouble with that ghastly WP:CP page. Antandrus (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
23. Support, with the suggestion about ownership. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
24. Support, with modifications per Bovlb. – ABCD✉ 08:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
25. Support let's keep WP:CP for problems, i.e. pages which need a specialist opinion: most copyvio is so blatent than anyone (i.e. random nominator and random deleting admin) can take care of it. Physchim62 10:53, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
26. Support because in excess of 90% of WP:CP submissions are obvious. Let's cut out the bureacracy in the easy cases, just like we do with other criteria for speedy deletion. —Morven 11:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

    SupportHere, here Morven! I believe the credibility of Wikipedia is at risk if correcting content is bogged down in bureacracy. Even the sound of that word is anti-wiki. The "no thanks" statement reads well and does not deny an element of appeal. Overall, a well-executed solution. Keep it moving. Segue 13:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC) This is this user's first edit, and thus can be discounted as clearly stated at the top of this page. --Blackcap | talk 03:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

27. Guarded support. It's not entirely clear to me what a commercial content provider is. Is Slashdot a commercial content provider? Is IMDB? What about content copied from a forum on one of those sites? Pburka 15:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

    The personm who proposed this term said, on the talk page: "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". ..." Does that clarify matters? DES ^(talk) 09:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

28. Sure, it will lift the terrible mess off of CV. I wasn't aware discussion of this was held (a fact I am a bit put off by, then again I have been relatively idle in the past weeeks). I like the notification requirement as well. If it doesn't work out, then we can always get rid of it. This link is Broken 17:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

    The discussiuon was announced at WP:RFC, at WP:CP, and on the village pump, and I think in other places as well. Where shoulkd an announcement have been made to ensure that interested people took note of it? DES ^(talk) 20:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

    As I said I have been busy and editing less so I missed any notes on the discussion. The only source of news I regularly check is the signpost, a story there would have been nice. (I have VP on my watchlist but I didn't see it, odd)I don't fault you or anyone for this though. I wouldn't have argued with the proposal anyways. This link is Broken 21:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

29. Support. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
30. Support, Thue | talk 19:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
31. Support, since we can delete the copyvios and just start fresh on a later date. Zach (Sound Off) 21:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
32. Support, anything that lightens the load at Copyright Violations. Rje 00:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
33. Support. This is just common sense. Gamaliel 05:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
34. Support; I actually wish it included more copy 'n paste submissions than just those from "commercial content providers." Postdlf 07:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
35. Support as long as they're undoubtedly copyvios and as long as the creator is warned about the issue. Dealing with copyvio's becomes a problem the longer they remain, and also gives them the chance to be mirrored which should be avoided. Jimbo already put in place speedy deletion if unsourced and copyvio-ed images, so we might as well treat text the same way. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
36. Yes, this is fine. James F. (talk)
37. Support, keeping material like this malingering around in history for weeks until the copyvio page gets processed acheives nothing. --Stormie 09:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
38. Support --⟳ausa کui ^× 09:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
39. Support I read the opposing arguments, and talked to Ngb in IRC... and I just don't find them at all compelling. The WP:CP process is a substantial burden and it is demeaning as a human editor (i.e. not a robot) to be forced to go through it for every obvious violation caused by an uneducated new user. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a Free encyclopedia, not to copy one out of parts found elsewhere. Although it use useful to be able to use outside content we must not allow the cost of that freedom to be the happiness of the editors here or the overall copyright purity of our project, at least wherever we can help it. The rules in this proposal appear sufficient to mostly remove most judgment variability, they focus on the content which has the least probability of ever being okay, and the greatest probability of causing frustration in an editor forced to go through an overly complex process. --Gmaxwell 09:41, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
40. Support. Reasonable. -feydey 10:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
41. Support. The vast majority of entries at WP:CP are such obvious copyvios that this proposal amounts to brining more hands onto the deck at CP. This can only be a good thing: CP is exploding at the seams with usually only one or two admins paying it any deletion attention. Having many more admins mucking in will only help. -Splash^talk 16:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
42. Support. My one reservation is that, I presume, in many instances the copyvio notice on a page for several days encourages the creator or another user to draught a non-copyvio temp version to replace the copyvio one. — Eoghanacht ^talk 18:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
43. Support. I was going to vote against, but the thing that swayed me was the restriction to commercial content providers. I've certainly had experience with an article that was blatently copied from a University site, but it turned out that the poster was the original author. DJ Clayworth 18:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
44. MarkSweep✍ 20:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
45. support seems very reasonable. Tuf-Kat 21:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
46. Support. This has always been a criteria for speedy deletion on the Simple English Wikipedia and hasn't caused problems there. Angela 00:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
47. Support. mikka (t) 00:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
48. Support The workload is untenable. The few remaining doubts I have would be erased if we could "tag and bag" these. The variables here could use a couple pair of eyes. Rx StrangeLove 01:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
49. Support--Cyberjunkie | Talk 03:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
50. Support I don't see a problem with this proposal. Carbonite | Talk 03:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
51. Support. As good a proposal as any I could think of; lets WP:CP deal with real issues instead of the blatant copyvio cruft. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 04:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
52. Support. Just spend an hour on RC Patrol and you'll see how many of these occur. Titoxd 04:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
53. Support I have seen too much of this problem on RC patrol -- Chris 73 Talk 10:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
54. Support - Tεxτurε 16:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
55. support - CP is a painful process, and there is hardly ever any interesting discussion (unlike, say AfD). — brighterorange (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
56. Support: Absolutely reasonable — Cory Maylett 21:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
57. Support, I find the copyvio reporting process cumbersome and the present backlog overwhelming, this would make it simpler and more efficient. JJJJust 21:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
58. Support, and I am shocked that images aren't included explicitly in this policy proposal. Tempshill 22:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

    We considered including images, but kept stumbling over fair use problems. See the discussion this talk page. If you can come up with an ancillary proposal for copyvio images, you are more than welcome to do so, though Jimbo's recent declaration that unsourced / untagged images are speediable after 7 days on the site may largely make the need for such a provision moot. Dragons flight 23:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

    The intent, by the way, is not that images are "not explicitly included" but that images are explicitly not included. This proposed criterion will not be usable on anything but articles, which is to say text. DES ^(talk) 14:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

59. Very strong support, see these tons of times, and WP:CP grows larger and larger and larger.... -- (☺drini♫|☎) 17:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
60. Support. There's no need to copyvio an illegal article with no potential, it must be deleted as quickly as possible. Speedy is the answer. --Commander Keane 17:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
61. Support as per all of the above. Groeck 17:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
62. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
63. Support' so long as the definiton of "blatant" is strictly and carefully defined. --S.M. 03:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: When this vote started on September 17, this user had 53 edits. (contribs | count) --Blackcap | talk 06:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
64. Support. Stephen Turner 09:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
65. Support Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
66. Support. I've already been doing this. --Golbez 22:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
67. Support. Especially after the last total page copy I just found and tagged. Vegaswikian 22:12, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
68. Support Fred Bauder 23:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
69. Support. --EngineerScotty 21:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC). Concur that this only should apply in blatant cases.
70. Support. Backlog makes this necessary. Xoloz 07:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
71. Support. Here here! --Woohookitty 08:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
72. Support Seems like the best solution to clear the backlog. KeithD (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
73. Support. This is going to make it easier to handle copyright violations, and the risk of abuse or misinterpretation seems small. If problems should arise, I'm convinced that we can handle them along the way. / Alarm 22:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
74. Support. --Metropolitan90 06:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
75. Support. novacatz 06:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
76. Support. I've always advocated a "speedy copyvio" process. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 08:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
77. Guarded support for reasons of pragmatism only. User education still seem key. For example, "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION" could be more visible on edit pages. and if it was coupled with a "...Why?" link to explain the GFDL in less-jargon-y language, we might see less infringement. Dwiki 10:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
78. Support. Lakes 20:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
79. SupportI encourage the change to "infringement" and the addition of ownership as a specific case for claims to permission. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
80. Support with a strong recommendation that fair use is explained to all admins. DirectorStratton 02:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
81. Support. --Blackcap | talk 03:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
82. Support. No reason to keep blatant copyvio stuff around for many days; stealing others' work without attribution is unwiki. Colin M. 07:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
83. Support. Sick and tired of all this copyvio being cut-and-pasted into WP. Ral315 W_S 00:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
84. Support. Qwghlm 11:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
85. Support. Howcheng

    Support. Grobertson 20:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC) This is this user's 45th edit, and can be discounted as stated at the top of this page. Grobertson's edit count: [1]. --Blackcap | talk 21:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

86. Guarded support per Dwiki above; I recognise the danger of making newcomers feel like criminals for making a mistake, but WP:CP is such a huge morass now that some form of stronger action is needed. Loganberry (Talk) 22:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
87. Support. --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
88. Support. --Rschen7754 04:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
89. Support. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 20:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
90. Support. McPhail 00:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
91. 'Support. ≈ jossi ≈ 02:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
92. Support. Schuminweb 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
93. Strong support for this idea. Rob Church ^Talk 16:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
94. Add my support - there seem to be enough safeguards in the wording. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
95. me too. Dunc|☺ 16:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
96. Support. --Hurricane111 18:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
97. Guarded support, per Dwiki. It's easier than dragging these things through AfD, and the people at WP:CP have a crazy amount of work to sort out. Also, I especially agree with Dwiki's point that we need a plain-English explanation of the GFDL and licensing issues. I've been here as a regular, registered editor for 10 1/2 months and still find it somewhat tedious to sort through WP:GFDL. Most copyvios are put up by newbies with only a few edits. Why should we expect the newbies to understand our documentation on the GFDL as well as our most experienced users can? --Idont Havaname 21:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
98. Support Dlyons493 Talk 22:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Ngb ^?!? 09:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC) My various objections on the talk page remain totally unsatisfied.
2. Cryptic (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC) per objections at Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD/Proposal V (Copyright violations), almost all of which are just as valid for this proposal as they were for that one.

   Such as...? This was designed to deal with those concerns. Martin 10:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

   In particular, that since all speedy criteria are regularly bent, this will lead to adminstrators deleting things that "look like" copyvios; and that the current copyvio process works, aside from the occasional backlog that won't be relieved by moving it into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion instead. —Cryptic (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

   Except that speedies don't have to wait a week. ~~ N (t/c) 16:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

   Note that the notiofication provision requires that an explicit uRL be supplied. If this is complied with, lo "looks like" will be speedied. (Of course some people will violate the policy, but i hope not many once editors and admins are used to it.) DES ^(talk) 21:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

3. Jamesday 06:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC) This doesn't narrow the previous proposal, it broadens it substantially. It'd be nice if the proposer had actually used correct language: you infringe copyright, you don't violate it. I oppose because too many have too poor an idea of what is and isn't fair use or already exercise views which differ from the law and this makes it easier to do so. The addition of a requirement to notify is very welcome, but where's the time for the person to read that and respond to the question about the status of the work?

   It is clearly stricter then previous proposals. The word "violation" was used because at present we tag pages as "copyvio", but it hardly matters does it, this isnt a legal contract. Time isnt needed to respond, if they do happen to have permission to copy material from a commercial site, then they can easily re-upload all of it, stating permissions. Martin 09:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

   'They can easily re-upload all of it'> My concern is that this amounts to biting the newcomers -- it could permanently discourage potentially productive contributors from adding content to Wikipedia if they find their first additions were deleted on sight and with no discussion. --Ngb ^?!? 09:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

   We already speedy delete lots of stuff from newcomers, and quite a lot that was uploaded in good faith (e.g. non-notable bios). Plus uploaders will receive the polite and helpful notice explaining what happened, which does not happen for other speedies. Martin 09:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

4. Guettarda 16:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC) - I have come across several instances in which people were accused of copyvios when in fact the material had been copied from the Wikipedia article. Since experienced editors have accused other experienced editors of copyvios on these grounds, I am unwilling to put that decision in the hands of a single admin.

   That situation would breach pretty much all the parameters. I could similarly delete an article for being a non-notable bio (and that wouldn't even require notifying the uploader!) even if it was a notable bio; we can undelete articles to deal with these mistakes. Martin 16:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

   Note to fit this criterion, there must be a specific, commercial site, not a mirror, from which the copyvio text has been taked pretty muich unchanged, and the page must be a recent creation. Did any of the cases you fit those criteria? DES ^(talk) 21:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

   Nothing in our license prohibits mirrors from being commercial sites. --Ngb ^?!? 21:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

   The most relevant part of this proposal to deal with your problem is that the page must have been created within the last 48 hours. What are the chances a page is mirrored within 48 hours? Fieari 02:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

   And on a page that was a nonobvious mirror, no less. A point should be made that if the content was copied from some *other* Wikipedia page then there is also no loss in deleting it. I think undeletion is a fitting solution to the unlikely case where a new article is created, mirrored, and mistakenly deleted all with 48hours. What do you think Guettarda? --Gmaxwell 14:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

5. Oppose any policy granting special consideration to "commercial content providers". Copyright infringement is still copyright infringement, no matter whether the copyright holder is a "commercial provider" or just J. Random Blogger. Nothing in Wikipedia policy should further the abuse of copyright to centralize power in the hands of commercial providers. This proposal should be amended to eliminate all mention of commercial providers, thereby extending its protection to all online information publishers. --FOo 20:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

   I agree with you too an extent, however, remember that this proposal isn't about protection in the slightest though, it is about reducing the bureacracy in dealing with the more obvious cases. thanks Martin 20:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

   The reason for this limitation is not because we want to give any greater protection to commercial sites. it is because a commercial content provider is particualrly unlikely to grant permission for GFDL release. The first version of the proposal had instead the rather vague condition "no chance that wikipedia has permission". The discusion on the talk page by several, including me, raised the point that this was too vague for a speedy delete criterion -- it could lead to lots of debates over how we knew that there was "no chance". So this conditon was suggested instead. It does sometimes happen that a person posts what seems to be a copyvio, and it turns out that they had permission, or that they didn't but when asked, the content provider grants permission. But this pretty much never happens with commercial content providers. Can you suggest any other distinction that can be made with little or no research by the person tagging an article and/or the admin deleting it that marks off those sites virtualy certian never to grant permission> Read the discusssion on the talk page that lead to this wording. If you have a better idea, please propose it. But extending it to all web sites simply will not fly. DES ^(talk) 20:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

   I understand your responses, but my objection stands. Even if you do not mean it as granting special treatment to commercial sites, that is what the provision does. It says that Wikipedia will remedy infringements of commercial sites' copyright more speedily than we will remedy other infringements. (Acting more speedily is the purpose of CSD, after all.) Whether or not you intend that as special treatment, it amounts to one in effect. And it is not an OK thing for us to say to noncommercial copyright holders: that an infringement of their copyright is of lesser importance to us; that it does not merit the same speedy treatment that a commercial copyright holder's does. --FOo 04:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

   What alternate criterion, that would be neutral on the commercial/noncommercial axis, would you suggest? I at least would be open to any reasonable alternative. Such an alternaive must, IMO identify with fair assurance (very low false-positive rate) sites which will not grant a GFDL release on content. Or would you adopt the position that "since some non-commercial sites may grant releases, we shouldn't speedy any copyvios as that would be unfair"? I think that is elevating style over substance. Or would you say that we should drop this requirement altogether, and assume no site will ever grant a release? If so, I strongly disagree -- such releases are grnted in a fair number of cases (albiet a small proportion of the whole) and this would be to toss out perfectly good content over an academic point of fairness. Note also that if ANY copyright holder, commercial or non-commercial, reaches out to us and complains, things are handled by a different and quite swift process. We would probably be legal if we always waited for a compalint -- not waiting for an actual complaint is as much to protect our overall reputation and as a matter of "doing the right thing" as it is a matter of avoiding legal liability. DES ^(talk) 21:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

   So, let me see if I understand this right, you oppose this because this isn't dealing with all kinds of copyvios but only those coming from commercial sites? -- (☺drini♫|☎) 17:05, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

6. I'll oppose for the same reason as Foo, despite the fact that the measure will probably pass anyway. Superm401 | Talk 20:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. While I think this idea is useful the lack of encouragement to use the copyvio source to write an article white citing it seems like a flaw. For copyvio articles I often take the gist and cite the violated article and make a stub. This, to me, seems like a good idea considering it gives the basis of an article for users with more expert knowledge to expand upon. While I admire this proposals aims of getting rid of the backlog I believe it should at least encourage that credible sources on credible subjects be turned into stubs rather than just be deleted. In any case, it appears this will pass. gren グレン 09:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

   Would such encouragement in the warning notice be a good idea, do you think? That wouldn't have the same effect as the copyvio notice simply sitting there, but it couldn't hurt. DES ^(talk) 13:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

   I think it would be? It at least creates stub placeholders if the article is wortwhile. Something like (Normal violation/deletion notice followed by) If this violation is from a credible source then you are encouraged to use it as a reference in creating a stub for this topic. gren グレン 20:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

   I have edited the draft warning template to make a clearer suggestion to create a non-copyvio version. Please take a look at User:DESiegel/Nothanks-sd and see if you like the current text, or have any suggestions. DES ^(talk) 05:15, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

   Yeah, I think that looks good. I really think some people just have no concept of copyrights online and telling them they can rewrite it in their own words (I would add citing {{{url}}} as a source and maybe say if it's credible) will be a good way to get content from sources and not have them as copyright violations. gren グレン 08:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

2. I don't think that this will necessarily lead to many unwanted deletions, but I see other problems with speedy deletions, not just of copyvios. I think that the newcomers who commit innocent mistakes shouldn't be treated the same way as vandals, i.e. with instant unexplained reverts and deletions. Bear in mind that passers-by are likely to return with a different IP and never see the notification on their talk page. I would support a simpler mechanism for removing obviously useless pages (i.e. no voting), if the explanation of why the page is to be deleted was left on the page for at least 48 hours before the page is deleted. Zocky 01:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

   I initally argued for a delay period for thais and other reasons, but there was very little support for such an idea. For one thing that would mean a third deletion mechanism, neither speedy nor regular (nor the current WP:CP procedures, either). The notification isn't perfect, but it will help in a fair number of cases -- many people do now have static IP addresses, and some do register. DES ^(talk) 15:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Regarding {{Nothanks-sd}} - Shouldn't we create this anyway and use it when deleting copyvios using the long method? (At least until the short method passes.) - Tεxτurε 17:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

• The long method already has, and WP:CP recomends {{nothanks}} I modeled my draft of {{Nothanks-sd}} on it, with what i thought were useful additions for the speedy case, particualrly since the page may be gone, which isn't usualy true so soon in the long method. if you think any of what I did in my draft should be migrated back into {{nothanks}}, feel free to edit that just as you would any widely used template. DES ^(talk) 17:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Will the current backlog at WP:CP meeting these parameters be eligible for speedy deletion? Rx StrangeLove 04:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure any non-admin could go ahead and tag the straightfoward and long overdue copyvios as speedies, just tag them like this {{db|copyio from date}}.--nixie 04:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, just so I'm clear, when/if this passes admins can immediately start deleting those WP:CP entries that meet these parameters. Rx StrangeLove 05:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• This "vote" is unnecessary; we can speedily delete blatant copyright violations anyway. Kelly Martin 20:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Under what grounds? Eric119 05:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That is entirely wrong. Martin 10:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Uh, under the grounds that knowingly violating copyright is a felony in the US? DMCA safe harbor for content hosts doesn't extent to willful infringment. Although there is always an open question of how sure can you be? If the uploader tells you that it's copyvio, I think we can say it would be safe to speedy it. :) Beyond that, ... thats why we are having the discussion here. --Gmaxwell 12:32, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but having a process to inviatigate a possible copyright violation, particualrly when no alleged owner or owner's represenative has complained, is perfectly legal under US Law, pleanty of sites delay for a week or more to look into copyright claims even when an owner does complain. That does not require instant deletion of alleged copyright infringments. DES ^(talk) 14:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• By the way, per Jamesday's comments above, if this passes can please we alter the final text to use the word "infringment" rather than "violation"? it is more legally correct, and has the same practical meaning. DES ^(talk) 14:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Also, the "commercial sites" thing should be reworded. We shouldn't, as a matter of principle, distinguish between commercial and non-commercial copyright holders. Zocky 01:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Note the wording is not "commercial sites" but "commerical content providers" which is more limited. see the discussion above. The reason is not to give more protection to soem people's rights, but to distinguish between thsoe sites wildly unlikely to grant a GFDL release from those not so unlikley. In an fair number of cases, when a copyright holder is contacted after a copyvio is detected the holder does grant a release, but AFAIK this has never happened whith a site in the buisness of selling content (which is what is meant by a "commercial content provider", as i understand it). If you can suggest any better wording or criterion to distinguash sites highly unlikely to grant a release from sites not so unlikly, please suggest it. DES ^(talk) 15:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)