Login
Login

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Thisthat2011

{{backlog}}

{{/Header}}

Requests

Please add all requests at the bottom of the list below, following the format given at How should a case be filed? above. A copyright clerk or administrator will review your request, according to the instructions, then either open the case or decline it.

= Shah Jafer =

  • {{User5|Shah Jafer}}
  • Check requested by DoctorWhoFan91 (talk)
  • Three of their created articles has been tagged for deletion (by me) because of blatant copyright violation, with one already deleted. In addition, I have tagged their edits on a page as copyvio too, and they had their edits deleted here in November due to copvio. Due to interactions on their talk page and mine, I believe they do not understand copyright or wikipedia policies, as all of the above are exact translations from Sindhi, and they use a source called sindhiadabiboard, which provides access to sources (which they change to the actual book in later edits, so might be easier to check with the references in the earliest versions). Requesting an investigation, as the other articles copy from a variety of sources, and it's harder to search due to the sources being in Sindhi. They might also have a COI, as they edit Talpur articles, and mentioned being half Talpur in one of their edit summaries. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • :HALF TALPUR BUT IM NOT FROM THE ROYAL FAMILY NOR ARE THEY MY ANCESTORS. talpur is a big tribe, i have already mentioned this but you keep on leeching this. Shah Jafer (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked. Results below. MER-C 16:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|MER-C}}, did you mean to block Shah Jafer? They're currently unblocked. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, I forgot. Fixed. MER-C 09:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

This report generated by [https://github.com/MER-C/wiki-java ContributionSurveyor.java] at 2025-05-10T16:45:03.695620805Z. Command line: java org.wikipedia.tools.ContributionSurveyor --user Shah Jafer --outfile dump.txt Culled using: java org.wikipedia.tools.CCIAnalyser --numwords 10 --targs --extlinks --files --comments --references --outfile dump5.txt User:MER-C/Sandbox

= Burberry47 =

{{Quote box|1="I am writing to you to inform you of a breach of our CC-BY-SA license on our FANDOM wiki, hollyoaks.fandom.com. Several of your articles feature content copied-and-pasted from our site, with no attribution. I have attempted to add templates alerting to this situation, but it is becoming a cumbersome process as it affects a number of sections. At present, I have noticed licence infringements on the following articles (for which I have not added notices):

List_of_Hollyoaks_characters_introduced_in_1998 infringes on the following articles:

  • https://hollyoaks.fandom.com/wiki/Kevin_Daniels
  • https://hollyoaks.fandom.com/wiki/Vicky_Green
  • https://hollyoaks.fandom.com/wiki/Paul_Millington
  • https://hollyoaks.fandom.com/wiki/Vernon_Booth
  • https://hollyoaks.fandom.com/wiki/Wayne_Clark
  • https://hollyoaks.fandom.com/wiki/Emily_Taylor

List_of_Hollyoaks_characters_introduced_in_1999 infringes on the following articles:

  • https://hollyoaks.fandom.com/wiki/Dan_Sanders
  • https://hollyoaks.fandom.com/wiki/Stephen_MacGregor
  • https://hollyoaks.fandom.com/wiki/Sorcha_Donnelly

List_of_Hollyoaks_characters_introduced_in_2000 infringes on the following articles:

  • https://hollyoaks.fandom.com/wiki/Kenneth_Boyd
  • https://hollyoaks.fandom.com/wiki/Taylor_James

I would request that your editors are reminded of these licensing requirements, as this is the second instance that we have had to flag this."}}

I presume there are more similar violations based on this evidence sent to VRT above and the users many edits. These would be ok to be on WIkipedia, but they require CC attribution (and old revisions be deleted where attribution is missing). Also given that Fandom is licensed under a 3.0 version of the license, are we really allowed to "fix" our missing attribution, given "This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License." is part of the 3.0 legal code https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode ? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:To address your questions, @Josve05a, enwiki does not revdelete CC license attribution errors, and we do routinely fix missing attribution even after our transition to CC-BY-SA 4.0 without much issue. It would be helpful to know of the first instance that Hollyoaks fandom wiki has reached out to us (either onwiki or on VRT, which I have access to so a ticket # would suffice) so we can assess the extent of the issue. If the violations were done by multiple users a format like the WP:Contributor copyright investigations/VRT case would be better. On List of Hollyoaks characters introduced in 1998, Paul Millington content was added in Special:Diff/1035773230 and not by Burberry47. I have fully attributed that article.

:As for the request itself; the user has self-reverted on most of the "List of Hollyoaks characters introduced in..." articles, which is not necessary. @Burberry47, I'm going to revert your edits and add attribution. Fandom, and hollyoaks fandom wiki, operates on a compatible license, and has not requested the removal of said content. All that is required is proper attribution and careful thought of how the content is used in terms of compliance with our editing policies (mostly due weight and verifiability considerations). You can use {{tlx|1=Fandom content|2=sitename=Hollyoaks|3=article=Hollyoaks article title|4=datecopied=date of Fandom page}} to repair attribution. Sennecaster (Chat) 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

::Regarding revdel, we are legally required we should remove and revdel all content copied without proper attribution. The reason is that under the Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 license, a violation of the terms results in automatic termination of our right to use the content. This is explicitly stated in Section 7(a) of the legal code:

::{{tq|This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License.}}

::Because Wikipedia initially failed to provide attribution, we lost the right to use the content at the moment of the violation. That means we cannot simply “fix” the attribution retroactively. Instead, the only legally compliant course of action is to remove and revdel all improperly used content and, if appropriate, have a different editor reintroduce it with proper attribution afterward.

::Additionally, failing to follow the license correctly could expose Wikimedia to potential copyright claims, as we would be using content in direct violation of the licensing terms. This is different from cases where content was properly attributed at the time of import but later had attribution removed—there, we could restore the missing attribution. In this case, no valid attribution was provided initially, meaning we had no legal right to use the content in the first place (also note we provide data dumps of all revisions, so a revision without attribution is still considered to be a “live version” of the article according to the law. Hence all revisions without attributions needs to be revdel’d.)

::In short, any content copied from Fandom without attribution under CC-BY-SA 3.0 must be fully removed and revdel’d before it can be added back with proper attribution. The argument that Wikipedia “routinely fixes missing attribution” does not apply here, because no right to use the content ever existed due to the original licensing violation. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::::(Stroke and adjusted parts of my message which sounded a bit "legal threath-y".) Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I've revdeleted the ones listed here. People can re-add the content with attribution if they want to. Summarily this is too tedious to expect us to do at this point if we have to revdel everything after we attribute, and with the urgency of the ticket I am going to say that the tediousness and burden on us is too high for this amount of articles (it's about 4-5 fandom pages for one list). The only one I haven't done this on is 2005 because someone already reverted and questioned that it was a copyvio to begin with.Note for anyone looking; pardon my French but it's an absolute shitfest because these lists are the results of individual articles getting merged in. Special:Diff/1066973985 {{noping|Green WU}} is another user that copied. Read the edit histories very carefully for dates, and I recommend that people install Who Wrote That or use Wikiblame rigorously for this if you want to take it on. Sennecaster (Chat) 05:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:Looking at the sections that are concerned with the ticket, I'm certain at least a few of these violations date back to 2021 with additions from {{user|Jordan2k19}}, based on these diffs: Special:Diff/1035778601, Special:Diff/1035773230 Reconrabbit 20:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

:Not sure if anyone's following up on this or not, but I added attribution to a decent number of Hollyoaks character pages a while ago. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 05:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

= Roberto221 =

:Roberto221 has a history of uploading non-free media under inappropriate licenses. Specifically, he frequently uploads images of episcopal coats of arms under the "governmental seal" license. Not only are ecclesiastical coats of arms not governmental seals, they are also easily replaceable with free media (WP:NFCC#1). A wikiproject exists for this purpose and several highly dedicated users, User:SajoR and User:Linestamp, also devote their time to this. He will do this with team or stadium logos, uploading them under the incorrect governmental seal license as well (while for these logos it might not be possible to recreate).

: Examples of infringements: :File:Coat of Arms of Artur Bubnevych.jpg :File:Coat of Arms of Kevin Thomas Kenney(Saint Paul and Minneapolis).jpg :File:Coat of Arms of Ruthenian Catholic Eparchy of the Holy Protection of Mary of Phoenix.jpg :File:Coat of Arms of Dennis Gerald Walsh(Davenport).jpg :File:Coat of Arms of Scott Bullock(Rapid City).jpg :File:Coat of Arms of Yousif Habash.jpg :File:Rate Field.jpg :File:BOS Nation FC temp.jpg and countless others viewable in his upload log.

:Roberto truly does great work in creating and editing wiki pages for Roman Catholic bishops and is highly dedicated but he continues to misunderstand or ignore copyright and fair-use policy. ~Darth StabroTalk{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}Contribs 23:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

To whom it may concern,

The differences between the above Coats of Arms and the MLB/NFL stadiums logos, NBA/NHL arenas logos, Bowl games logos, AAC conference, ACC conference, etc. is what now? Maybe I am using the incorrect license but if you go to the Upload page and click on the This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use button and then click on the logo of an organization button, the drop-down menu reads Official seal, Coats of Arms etc. If this is not correct, then someone needs to tell me the correct version/process since, for over 10+ years, I've never had/heard a complaint until now.

As to the users User:SajoR and User:Linestamp, I send them the CoA's or put out the versions and then inform them where they can do their magic since I'm not proficient in creating an .SVG file

Roberto221 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:I was just driving by, so have no axe to grind. I took a quick look at one of your recent uploads, :File:Coat of Arms of John Michael Kudrick.jpg. You stated that it met the NFCC for John Michael Kudrick by writing "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question." You did not place the image at the top of the article, the image is not discussed at all in the article, and it is not the primary means of visual identification for a person - that would be a photograph of the person themselves. It clearly doesn't meet the NFCC. Your argument, above, suggests that you are relying on the upload script to select a license for you rather than reading and understanding the NFCC properly. MarcGarver (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Open investigations

{{/Bottom}}

Category:Wikipedia copyright