This is not the page to report a specific article's copyright problem. To do so, list the article on today's entry at the project page after following the appropriate instructions.
I looked at the redaction request for Ruben I and realized there were a number of different copyright violations from books and web sites. Could someone with more expertise than I look over this page? Thanks. — rsjaffe🗣️21:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsjaffe; from a copyright standpoint, there is no remaining copyvio present in the article. For redacting, typically I see admins like Nthep just pick a random source that had copyvio or point people to the history. I would go ahead and complete the revdel as requested. This article is part of a CCI where there is typically a lot of sources copied from. Granted, I'm not an admin, but I have made worse requests before; like this messfrom another CCI. Hope this helps, and thanks for jumping in with helping out! It's very appreciated. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just wanted to confirm that the Copyvio findings were correct. I generally do not proceed without confirmation. But as this was formally investigated, I’ll go ahead and redact. — rsjaffe🗣️01:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All taken care of. Next time, could the person making the copyvio revdel request put a link to the investigation in the comment for the edit? That way, I can tell that the request is reliable and that I don't have to track down and verify everything myself. When an admin does the revdel, we don't have to identify the source of the copied material, so what's more important to me is that an official investigation was done rather than that a specific source was the one that was copied. Thanks. — rsjaffe🗣️20:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rsjaffe; We don't normally link CCIs in our revdel requests; if you see a crapload of URLs in the history you can pretty safely assume that it's for a CCI, even if we don't mention it. Furthermore, the CCI regulars tend to be very conservative with revdels; out of my actual CV removals I maybe take 1 of 6 to revdel, and we never revdel for WP:PDEL, only sourced copyvios. If you want a list of current copyright regulars, I can name some as well. Sennecaster (Chat) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rsjaffe: Well, this isn't a 'trust us unilaterally' list, but a list where they are more likely to be doing CCI, CP, or copypatrol investigations and usually more experienced in copyright than the average editor requesting revdels. This list isn't exhaustive, but the clerks, MrLinkinPark, GreenLipstickLesbian, L3X1, 1AmNobody24, Trainsandotherthings, and a good amount of the permissions VRT agents and Commons sysops I trust too. There's some others I'm missing I'm sure. You can also check out the clerks page for a list of admins experienced in copyright if you have any more sysop-specific questions, or scrape through Category:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup participants for some more people; the latter is not a guarantee that they are actually active in copyright or active at all. If you're on Discord, we do have a channel as mentioned and are always happy to help. Thank you though, for stepping up and assisting with revdels. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always down to help out with copyright questions, but I can't promise that I fully know what the admin side looks like myself. Feel free to drop by my talk page. :) Sennecaster (Chat) 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sennecaster, can we lose the word random, please. That suggests we don't take these seriously. What goes in the log tends to be what was put in the revdel template, that's the way the script works. So, if the request doesn't contain all or any of the offending urls, they don't appear in the log. Nthep (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently writing an article on the Lord Botetourt statues (my userspace draft) that stand on the campus of the College of William & Mary. The original is from 1772 and obviously public domain. However, the 1993 replica (pictured here) may not be. While William & Mary calls it a "replica" in some places, they call it an "artist's interpretation" elsewhere. The artist behind the 1993 work understandably contended that it was not a replica despite relying extensively on the 1772 work and other public domain works to reconstruct it. I heavily lean towards this being a replica: that was the intended purpose of the design and it effectively mirrors the original in all ways but the medium it is made from. However, at least one other editor was concerned enough about potential issues that they uploaded a blurred image of the statue on the Commons. Any input or guidance here is deeply appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
