 | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Sections with no replies in 14 days are automatically moved. |
[edit] Template for open CCIs
A quick hack I put together just now. I don't know what to do with that white space - merely giving a description of the subject matter involved (to help involve editors who have an interest in the subject) isn't enough so two columns will do for the time being. MER-C 13:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fabulous! That's a great idea. A summary of subjects makes it particularly helpful for figuring out what project might care. (I need to draft a template for that.) Can we obscure the individual's names and just link to the description? Some of these contributors are indefinitely blocked, but some of them really were working off of a misunderstanding or operating in good faith, and I would hope to emphasize that it's about the content more than the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Another template: Template:CCI-project. This is designed to alert projects that may be significantly impacted by CCI work and to invite their participation in clean up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added MER-C's instructions for images (with attribution :)) with a few notes of my own, since we don't want to open PUF listings for images that are posted here. Look okay? Should we remove the empty {{User5}}? If we're copying the listing over, it seems redundant. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] NOINDEX and Robots.txt
I noticed that the case pages are tagged with {{noindex}}. All CCI subpages can be excluded at once by adding appropriate entries to MediaWiki:Robots.txt. This was done for the WP:Article Incubator. Flatscan (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Great! I think I will let somebody bolder with such things do this, though. I don't even know what a "syntax validator" is. And while I could look it up on Wikipedia (quite probably), I would still fear to poke at one. Can somebody else handle this, please? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Case archives
During the previous incarnations of this process, we've had a longish discussion about a closed investigation no longer remaining irrevocably in plain sight, in particular for contributors who helped clean up their own mistakes.
In fact, as adopted, the text of CCI still has: After completion, any CCI case, including those dismissed, will be moved to the archive subpage. On top of the latest revision of the case, the clerk will replace the text with a CCI archive banner listing the date filed, the date closed or dismissed, and the summary finding. Once this is done, he will immediately file all previous revisions for redaction or perform it himself if he is an admin clerk.
To that effect, I made a new template, presently at User:MLauba/CCI archive, which can be seen in action here. The intent being that once we've completed an investigation, we replace the investigation page's content with this when archiving, then delete (or hide once in effect) the history. This avoids the drama in particular with reformed users who'd otherwise keep getting their past thrown back in their face whenever they're involved in any dispute whatsoever.
Thoughts? MLauba (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. When a case is investigated, I think we need the history so we can verify that a certain article has been evaluated. I think we have some tension here between the need for discretion and the need for transparency, along with potentially useful access to records. If a contributor is going to have his past thrown in his face, I think it's going to be because he or she was investigated at all and not because of a specific article in that investigation. The traces of the investigation are likely to be widespread, with notices at AN (when necessary), at project pages (when appropriate) and at the user's page. Also, many article pages may contain links to the cleanup. (See, for example, Talk:William Haldimand. While the template there is structured to minimize embarrassment by obscuring the contributor's name, it can be located.) So it isn't as if we can make all traces disappear, or necessarily should. Do you believe that it will occasion substantially more embarrassment to contributors to have a record of which articles proved problematic and which did not accessible? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- The verification is done before the case is archived. In many cases, the instances of the copyvio will have been removed from the article, whenever possible through redaction or revision deletion. That means that the evidence is, by the time a case is archived, already hidden from non-admins.
- When we have article Testcase completely history purged of any infringement from User:Example, if we don't "seal" up the archive, the only easily accessible way for the general public to find out that article Testcase had infringement from User:Example becomes the CCI case archive.
- The only need I see to ever revisit a closed case is if a new one is opened for the same contributor. If that happens, the undelete button is two clicks away from the deleted revisions.
-
- Case in point, I remember quite vividly one user this year who was investigated (and blocked for a while) and participated in the cleanup. As he was involved in unrelated issues, the copyright issues kept being thrown at him as a pile-on, and I believe influenced quite a few of the people who called for his ban by the end.
-
- A seal with "Case: Example, Finding:multiple infringement, fully cleared, Example helped clean up" would allow redeemed users to carry on.
- Most of us probably tend to stay well clear of RFAR, but if you look at requests there, you will easily find that some litigants will dig up whatever dirt they can find to bolster their case, regardless of what happened afterwards. We don't need them to be able to harvest long-deleted diffs from our case pages, where most of it is in practice hidden to non-admins. This avoids needless distractions on any other matters, and on our side, the investigation being long closed, the matter is behind us anyway. MLauba (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
- I know verification is done before the case is archived, but that doesn't mean that it won't be necessary at some point to confirm. :) Particularly as the investigation represent our best efforts merely (I'm always worried about missing something, but I remain loathe to adopt the sometimes recommended approach of preemptively nuking it all. :/). Revision deletion and redaction are frequently not employed in CCIs, particularly as these are often assisted by non-admin article cleaners. Even with the articles created by GrahamBould, the articles were stubbed with a caution against restoration placed at the article's talk pages. In these cases, expedience rules, I'm afraid, for obvious reasons. Even with expedience, we can't keep on top of them. :/ In the case in point (and, oh dear, this seems to be future development of which I was unaware), I should think that the publicity at ANI and at the user's page would have been far more influential on the pile-on than the investigation page, which if anything would have provided evidence that the contributor helped. I guess my question is whether the dirt of a diff of a specific case is really any more condemnatory than an investigation in itself, given that for an investigation to have happened, multiple copyvios must have been confirmed? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] User Warnings
User:Lou72JG has an open investigation and some of his/her images have been found to be copyright violations. The user continues to question why their images are being removed or challenged and continues to upload images. The user has also re-uploaded images that have been previously deleted using the PUI/PUF process. Although this user has had all the standard template messages they dont appear to have any formal warnings. Once the investigation has found copyright violations should we warn these users to stop uploading images and block them if they continue, perhaps the CCI should have some guidance on this. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Final warning issued, if it is not heeded, an indef will be in order. MLauba (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- Thanks but should it be mentioned in the process using the sort of message you used ? MilborneOne (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] A new template, presumptive deletion
In conjunction with Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Henry Delforn, I have created {{subst:CCId}} for articles which are tagged for deletion without verification of copyright infringement. Current policy supports this presumptive deletion in cases where it has been verified that an individual has violated copyright in multiple points. The template presumes listing at WP:CP and advises interested contributors how to help verify the copyright status of the material or to rewrite the content if interested in its preservation. It cautions against use in cases where previous contents can be restored (where the contributor was not the creator) and recommends instead verifying infringement where other contributors have invested time (and creative content) into the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk)
