Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Reginhild
Wikipedian filing request:
Other Wikipedians this pertains to:
- Swatjester (talk · contribs)
Wikipedia pages this pertains to:
Questions:
[edit]Have you read the AMA FAQ?
- Answer: Yes
How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)
- Answer: Accusation of Copyright Violation has been made by SwatJester: "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement taken from http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=200108 ...". The material at the 6.5 Grendel Wiki page was from John Hanka who posted the material at his own website www.65grendel.com and at the other website mentioned above. John Hanka has stated at his website www.65grendel.com that he supports the posting of said material at Wikipedia.
What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.
- Answer: None - we have been threatened with "page...speedy deletion" of a large effort that has been put forth in the publishing of information as well as the discussion of updates to Wikipedia that have taken up 8 pages of forum on www.65grendel.com.
What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
- Answer: Look into the actions of SwatJester concerning the 6.5 Grendel cartridge on multiple pages at Wikipedia, notably the 6.5 Grendel page and the Assault Rifle page. Investigate who made the copyright accusation since the Author of the material, John Hanka, has given permission.
(removed references to John Hanka's online moniker to provide anonanimity)
Summary:
[edit]Accusation of Copyright Violation has been made by SwatJester: "This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement taken from http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=200108 ...". The material at the 6.5 Grendel Wiki page was from John Hanka who posted the material at his own website www.65grendel.com and at the other website mentioned above. John Hanka has stated at his website www.65grendel.com that he supports the posting of said material at Wikipedia.
Discussion:
[edit]John Hanka, who is the author of the material has now additionally posted in the talk section of the 6.5 Grendel page of Wikipedia granting full access to his material. He has additionally emailed wikipedia granting full access to his material and wants to see the 6.5 Grendel page restored to before SwatJester made changes with the false copyright infringement claim.
It is discouraging, that release was already given at the www.65grendel.com website owned by John Hanka and someone else decided to use a posting of John's from another forum (without contacting John) to claim there was a copyright violation. John and many of us post repetitions of our original work at multiple forums - it is sad to see that we probably have to make a non-copyrighted statement for each little posting if we plan to use it on Wikipedia as well.
Followup:
[edit]When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:
Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
- Answer: Yes, page restored in a reasonable time.
Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
- Answer: Yes.
On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
- Answer: 5
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
- Answer: 5
On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
- Answer: 5
If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
- Answer: This should not have had to go to the advocacy process. The author gave permission and someone else took a posting by the author and made a copyright violation claim. There should be some method of verifying validity of a copyright violation claim before it is allowed.
If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
- Answer: Nothing.
comments added
AMA Information
[edit]Case Status: closed
Advocate Status:
- None assigned.
- As the OTRS has demonstrated the permission as required, the problem would appear to be solved. Feel free to clarify if not! Martinp23 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Will close in a few days if no objection raised Martinp23 21:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- As the OTRS has demonstrated the permission as required, the problem would appear to be solved. Feel free to clarify if not! Martinp23 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have recieve confirmation from the user that the dispute has been solved. Closing. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)