User:Moneytrees/CCI Sort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a page I thought would be useful for Contributor copyright investigations contributors, and will make work easier there. Here, I rank the CCI's by their attributes. If you want to help out at CCI, please read User:Moneytrees/Money's guide to CCI. These are listed in descending order of challenge. Before editing CCIs, always read the background information that comes with them. For 2010 CCI's, a more detailed page can be found at User:Moneytrees/2010 CCI sort. For bot maintained statistics, see User:Amalthea/CCI/Overview.

  • For presumptive deletions/removals:

{{subst:copyvio|url=Presumptive deletion over copyright concerns, please see: [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/INSERTNAME]]}}

Presumptive removal over copyright concerns, please see: [[Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/INSERTNAME]]

Highest priority/ largest[edit]

Copy and paste moves[edit]

These ones straight suck, but fortunately are pretty rare. Only admins can truly fix these, although regular users can mark the article for a history merge to fix. The copied material can also be removed, if possible. Click on the header for an explanation.

Book/offline sources CCIs[edit]

Like the section title says, these Contributors would copy from books. Since 99% of these can't be found by earwig, are not online or are very hard to find online, presumptive removal is usually necessary. Some users may have copys of the sources

Translation CCIs[edit]

There tend to be two of one things:

  • 1. (Way more common) The contributor ran a foreign language source through a translation machine, and then pasted the translation into an article.
  • 2. The contributor translated an article manually, and then posted the content into an article.

These ones are pretty annoying, since they won't show up on earwig. Unless you are or can contact an editor fluent in the plagarized language, it is best to presumptively remove the edits.

Paywall CCIs[edit]

These contributors would copy text from paywalled sources, such as journals or news sites. Again, unless you can contact someone who has access to the publications, or you have access, then you have to presumptively remove the edits. Earwig works on most mainstream news sites, but won't work on most journals.


File CCIs are pretty rare, and a little harder to figure out than text ones, but not by much. If a file is suspicious, nominate it for deletion here, citing the CCI as a reason. If it was uploaded on commons, nominate it for deletion there and cite the CCI as rational for deletion. If you have any questions, ask away at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.


The website CCIs, the most common type. Pretty explanatory, someone copied from a website into wikipedia when they shouldn't have.

Public domain/free license/copying within Wikipedia CCIs[edit]

Usually the easiest CCIs, where the contributor copied from not copyrighted sources, but neglected to provide attribution. In wiki copies require attribution on the talk page, while pd/free license stuff requires a template in the ref.


These CCIs either cover too many different styles of copying to be placed into one section, ot are weird and don't fall into the categories others do. I'll provide notes to give a general idea of what they consist of.

Spi's of users with closed CCIs[edit]