Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 08:34, 15 September 2021

This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Misplaced Pages. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion.

{{WikiProject Islam}}

Copyvio tagging questions

This short article has 20 references, and it's tagged as a copyvio? --Sreifa (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The article lifts the text straight from the sources. That's the problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Are you claiming that all of the article is lifted straight from the sources? I would be very surprised if that is what you are asserting. But I can't tell, from the above.

If that is not what you are saying, then would it be possible for you to indicate to the community which specific sentences you believe are lifted straight from the sources? That way, the community can consider and examine your assertion, and if you are correct in the eyes of any editor (or even if the editor does not think you are correct), that would afford the community an opportunity to address what you feel are copyvio concerns.

Also, is there any way to list at the AFD lists those copyvio-claimed articles which have been blanked, and may be deleted, so that interested members of the community can see the discussion bearing on their deletion and take part in the discussion?

2 question on process -- Let's assume that you specify those sentence(s) you believe are copyvios. One or more editors believes that your judgment is incorrect. Editors have an opportunity to consider and discuss the specified sentences, which presumably they do at this talk page or at a copyvio listing. The consensus is that the sentence is not a copyvio.

--Is the consensus view afforded the same weight that a consensus view has at AFD?

Let's assume that someone tags an article as a copyvio, and they are incorrect in their judgment. What is the process for keeping the article from being deleted, if the answer is simply that it is not a copyright violation?

Let's assume that an editor tags an entire article for deletion, and only a fraction of it is a copyvio. What's the process to avoid deletion of a 100-sentence article, for a 1-sentence copyvio, for example?

--And if the article is deleted, what deletion review process is available to the community? For example, is there a process akin to the deletion review process that we have for articles that are deleted at AFD?

Also -- thought I'll not have major amounts of time to edit for the next week, I'm interested in working on not only checking for copyvios in this CCI, and fixing or flagging them where I see them, but also in working on those that have already been deleted. Is there a way to have those restored to subpages, so they can be worked on as well?

Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I am saying that (1) you created the article; (2) at the time you were a persistent violator of copyright. That, alone, is enough for the article to be deleted or stubbified in accordance with copyright policy. In any case, the close paraphrasing here is clear. MAYA has held conferences featuring Hamas leaders who called for the destruction of Israel, and printed and has distributed anti-Semitic material closely paraphrases this book extract. ...an unofficial umbrella group for Islamic militants in America and various arms of the Muslim Brotherhood is lifted from here. Some sources seem to no longer be accessible. When the seven days for the copyright blanking tag have expired, an administrator will assess the article and decide what to do with it. That's the review process. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll be happy to explain in a little more detail how this works.

When a contributor has been demonstrated to have violated our copyright policies across multiple articles, policy sanctions removing everything they have written indiscriminately: "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 contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." The CCI process attempts to at least look to make sure this is necessary before taking this step. It has been applied as written, but rarely; in one recent case, a bot blanked every article created by a certain contributor. I think this is an extreme measure and prefer the current method. Unfortunately, we cannot presume that any of the articles you have created in the past meet copyright standards on Misplaced Pages.

For that reason, there is no onus on reviewers to prove that every word is copied. Unlike an ordinary article and an ordinary copyright concern, we already know that the contributor in question has violated policy repeatedly. If an editor without a history of copyright problems finds signs of copying in an article, they are sanctioned to remove every word that contributor added to it or to blank it. (They're actually sanctioned to remove it without evidence, but generally do not; the instructions at the top of your CCI say, "If the contributor has added creative content, either evaluate it carefully for copyright concerns or remove it.")

I do not have time to do a thorough review of this article, but a quick glance immediately draws one suspect phrase to my eye: "'Allah Akhbar,' roared the crowd, offering spontaneous praise." That colorful bit of writing belongs to James Brooke and Elaine Sciolino of The New York Times. You have copied it verbatim. I don't know how much more of the article was copied and pasted or what may have been closely paraphrased, although I see that since I started writing this Mkativerata has supplied some more.

Articles blanked are listed at WP:CP along with every copyright problem; they are routinely addressed a week or so after blanking. This process was created to deal with copyright questions long before I started working them. It is different from WP:AFD as the consensus is based entirely on how well the content fits within copyright policies. In cases like yours, the situation is complicated that sources may no longer be accessible or print sources may have been used; copyright policy is clear that we must "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Misplaced Pages. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Misplaced Pages without trouble." This has also been part of policy since before I started working in the area, give or take four years ago.

In addition to visibility at WP:CP, your CCI page is annotated, so anyone who cares to follow the progress of cleaning up your copyright issues may do so. Every article that is blanked is so labeled and timestamped. Any article may be brought to WP:DRV. Typically, people are not quick to restore content deleted for copyright concerns.

We do not restore articles that have been deleted as copyright violations, so, no, articles that have already been deleted will not be restored. However, if there are any articles that have already been deleted for which you would like non-creative content (such as infoboxes or external links), drop me a note at my talk page, and I'll be happy to supply those to you. --Moonriddengirl 02:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Page deleted

I have reviewed the concerns above about copyright. I agree with them and have deleted the article. It can and should be recreated though. NW (Talk) 02:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages orphaned talk pages that should not be speedily deleted