Ttrimm
1
I think a good title for an article would be How to Process a Copyvio while Doing Recent Changes Patrol (or something like that).
I wonder if you CAN do that.
I think this is a good idea. I don’t know how I overlooked this thread.
^
I’ve wondered this while patrolling RC. I asked Dave about copyvios once and he said to just leave it so they could take care of it and not get confused. I don’t know much about this (well, enough that I don’t violate anything, LOL), but would like to. (: June Days
Can you really patrol a copyvio?
system
6
Anyone who patrols any recent change can patrol an edit by the copyviobot. What might be a problem is whether the article page is handled correctly either by the RC patroller, or someone else later on. In the past, Dave Crosby would check the copyviobot’s log and handle every single copyright violation it picked up himself, so whether a patroller blanked the content or not, the correct steps for handling the article would be taken. If anyone cares to know, Dave’s basic method of handling a copyviobot detected article basically consisted of 1. Blank the content of the page, except the copyviobot message. This is easy using RC quickedit, since it is the same format as advanced editing. 2. Copy the copyviobot message (save to your clipboard, or other). 3. Save the edit with the content blanked. 4. When you are sure the edit has saved (by clicking advanced underneath the header on the RC screen, then selecting History), scroll the history and go to the original author’s talk page. Paste the copyviobot message on his/her talkpage. 5. If the spam filter doesn’t allow the copyviobot message to publish, I generally just edit the ‘‘http//’’ off the message on the address of the website the bot thinks the material is a copyright violation of. 6. Realise, although the message you leave the author says to contact Krystle or Dave, they may respond to you to claim ownership of the content, so the person who patrols and leaves a message to the author should either contact an admin to let us know the author has permission/created the content himself, or leave a message to the author asking him/her to contact Krystle, Chris Hadley, or an interested admin to have the bot message removed and the content restored. 7. One optional step, and one an administrator might be more likely to use, is to open the page the copyviobot says the content is similar to, just to make sure the bot didn’t hit a false positive on it’s analysis of the content. I have seen a number of times when the target article and the viewed content didn’t seem to have anything in common, and in fact, the bot was obviously wrong, so the bot message could be removed immediately, during patrolling. 8. Lastly, unless someone else has more I am overlooking, understand that in terms of patrolling recent changes, no one is required, nor is it remotely desirable, for anyone to patrol any edit they are uncertain about. I get very tired of see interwiki links removed, or edits removing unlicensed images reverted, then sending a message to the inept patroller, only to be told “I didn’t understand the edit” …which only means someone is patrolling edits they don’t understand, and undoing good work in the process.
system
7
Mines (in the spirit of catching up with copyvio articles and images): Reviewing article violations: 1. Always open up the proposed bot link in a new tab (I tend to see about 10% of links coming from forums, etc that can’t be accessed or was probably just cached in the past… and the bot isn’t perfect!) 2. Verify the material on both sites. 3. If deemed copied, copy the external URL in my clipboard and blank all content except for the bot’s template. Change the date to the current one if it’s in the past. ----- 3A. If deemed not copied, remove the bot template and review the article if it’s in wikiHow format and not against the deletion policy (50-75% of the time, a NFD template is placed, typically for advertising or not being a how-to)… and then continue on with other editing. ----- 3B. If the article is confirmed to be derived from eHow, delete the article and place {{copyviorehow}} onto the article creator’s talk page. (Use {{speedy}} if not an administrator) ----- 3C. If the article is confirmed to be derived from any of the top portion sites on http://www.wikihow.com/wikiHow:Content-Farm-Submissions
, delete the article and place {{copyviorfarm}} onto the article creator’s talk page. (Use {{speedy}} if not an administrator) 4. If deemed copied, add {{copyvior|the_external_URL}} onto the article creator’s talk page. Reviewing confirmations: 1. Always open the article creator’s talk page after 7 days (to see if they have been nudged concerning the potential copyvio). If not, redo the above process and modify the bot’s date to the current one and re-wait the 7 days. 2. Always open the article creator’s contribution page. This is to see if they have either confirmed or discussed the potential copyvio with anyone. ----- 2A. If so, remove the copyvio message and review the article. ----- 2B. If not, delete the article and place “No response to querying of copyright status. Article deleted.” on the discussion page (stole from Dave) I would like to echo about BR’s last message concerning patrollers. It can be very awkward when you’re processing potential copyrighted issues, not only articles, but also images and find your stuff being reverted without getting warned or a head’s up – and you’re the one finding it out yourself. It’s seriously recommended to review not only the content, but also try to understand any edit summaries people leave. And yes, I find myself getting reverted more when removing copyrighted images than dealing with copyvio articles even if my only edit summary that I use is “Removing copyrighted image(s)”. Please either patrol or revert edits that you fully and completely understand what it is about =)
So you can patrol a copyvio? Was that what you were saying?
Oh. That’s cool, thanks for letting me/us know, Maluniu and BR.
That’s probably what he was saying when I asked him the question; good to know how you guys do it, though.
Just letting you know, usually someone’s post that comes after yours is their response to you. (; June Days
