Due to potential copyright violations, part or all of this article has been blanked pending the investigation. I've set an expiry for the protection. Please note that the copyright inquiry needs to be looked into in the meantime and actioned appropriately. Edit warring is not acceptable, especially with regards to copyright. Protection time may be adjusted accordingly by any admin without consulting me. Rjd0060 (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
- The previously deleted comment on this page from the accused sock says that it was released under a CC0 license. CC0 is equivalent to public domain and doesn't require attribution, so that's not really a claim of a copyright violation, despite the template placed on the article by the same user who stated it had been released under a CC0 license. As such, I'm going to unprotect and restore the article... and block the editor who repeatedly placed a copyright vio claim on content they said was released under a CC0 license, since they either really are a sock or are just a random troll. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
- The editor who put the copyvio tag in place, repeatedly, has been blocked and tagged as a sockpuppet of banned user Russavia. As Kevin notes, the same editor released the text via CC0 license, then contrarily tried to claim copyvio. He cannot have it both ways. Those two facts should immediately halt the copyright violation investigation that Rjd0060 put in place. There's no problem here. Binksternet (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Binksternet, you absolutely must not perform a copy/paste move without attribution: if Russavia hadn't made a PD release, you would be facing sanctions for copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Binksternet, you might wish to read the page Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, in particular WP:RUD. Also note that when WP:PATT talks about attribution by a link, this assumes that the linked page hasn't been deleted. Attribution to Special:Undelete/Some other page isn't sufficient attribution, as only administrators can access that special page. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
- At Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_trouble_with_Russavia Nil Einne expresses a different view, that there is nothing that needs to be done here with regard to attribution. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
- The comment is addressing situations in which the copyright holder has given a PD release or has explicitly permitted reusers to ignore a license's attribution requirement. Meanwhile, please remember that you made me waste time on a histmerge by making a copy/paste move. Nyttend (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
- From everything I've heard, the histmerge is the worst job. I'm sorry I made you waste time on one. Binksternet (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Yes to be clear I was only referring to a situation where the content was released under CC0 or in to the public domain or some licence which was compatible with both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA but did not include an attribution requirement. (Of course if someone has released the content without an attribution requirement, technically it doesn't mater it isn't clear per se. There still can't be copyvio, it's just that we aren't in a good situation if we can't prove it.) In that case, there can logically be no copyvio due to use failing to attribute.
- As I also mentioned, there are policy reasons why we should always attribute including the fact it prevents confusion over the copyright status. These are still important, they just aren't an issue of a copyright violation.
- The reason I mentioned this in that thread is because there was some suggestion that the content had been released under CC0. In fact as I understand it, someone was simultaneously claiming to be the copyright holder and complaining of a copyvio while saying it was CC0, which as others have said makes no sense. Then there was a comment which, whether it was intended that way or not, seemed to imply that we risked a copyvio because of the original licence the material was released under. Or because of our requirements for attribution of all work, including that from public domain. So I thought it important to clarify this was all irrelevant when it came to the issue of copyvio if there was a CC0 (or other no attribution) release. I apologise if in doing so I caused further confusion.
- Nil Einne (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
