• G. Stanley Hall (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://web.archive.org/web/20141115074951/http://www.clarku.edu/research/archives/archives/g-stanley-hall.cfm.   — Chris Capoccia 💬 19:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Architectural and memorial complex of Kos Ana (history · last edit · rewrite) from https://turkistantravel.com/material/single/architectural-memorial-complex-kos-ana, and other articles created by Turkupt13 copied from turkistantravel.com:

• Baba Tukti Shashti Aziz Mausoleum (history · last edit · rewrite)
• Draft:Ismail Ata Mausoleum (history · last edit · rewrite)
• Draft:Mausoleum of Baidibek Bi (history · last edit · rewrite)
• Draft:Sangyl Bi Mausoleum (history · last edit · rewrite)
• Draft:Shammat Ishan mosque museum (history · last edit · rewrite)
• Ancient city of Kultobe (history · last edit · rewrite)
• Ishan Bazaar Mosque (Akmeshit) (history · last edit · rewrite)
• Draft:Domalak Ana Mausoleum (history · last edit · rewrite)

There is some complicated backstory here. A CCI request was filed on Turkupt13 as they had been copying from Turkistantravel.com, aka the Turkistan Tourism Centre, which exists to promote tourism in Turkistan. VRT agent TheAafi told CCI clerk The4lines that they had "taken care of the copyrights associated with it" and asked that the CCI request be archived because "It doesn't need any further investigation". TheAafi had added VRT ticket notices to the talk pages of some of the articles Turkupt13 had created, but not all of them. The CCI request was subsequently archived, along with the unfinished listing of articles there. Turkupt has recently returned to creating articles that are also copied from Turkistantravel.com pages, all of which were tagged with G12's by other editors (Ping them: Aoidh, Giraffer, Rsjaffe, PhantomTech). The articles did not have any attribution notices in them or on their talk pages, and the website still says "all rights reserved" at the bottom, so it would be reasonable to assume they are copyright violations. I am listing this here to figure out two things: if the newly created articles are also covered by the VRT ticket cited on the other talk pages (I do not have VRT access so I cannot check for myself), and if the articles should even be kept; they are all directly copied from a promotional website, while they under an ok license that doesn't mean we need to accept promotional content. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, some of the tickets are about files, not text but I don't see any evidence that the permission is even acceptable, not to mention that we're under no obligation to accept original research much less OR in the form of a promotional travel site. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The document that I reviewed on the VRTS is signed by the director of Turkistan Tourism Board and it is completely signed and stamped. In that document, they state a list of 55 publications to be under a free-license. The creator of these articles here needs to be warned because most of the articles have notability issues. I also suggested them to take care of this and don't create articles in hurry. I added the VRTS permission tags only one drafts/article that were deleted for copyright violation of this very website and checked others as well but no other article was reported/deleted for copyright problems that time. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 00:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added permission tags on the other drafts as well. I need to agree with my friend @Praxidicae that none of these articles are ready for Wikipedia mainspace. This editor needs guidance and mentorship, in my opinion. The articles were deleted and then restored by admins @C.Fred, @Justlettersandnumbers, and @Jimfbleak and all of these people trusted my acceptance of the permission. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 01:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Among the other listed articles, Syrdarya–Turkestan State Regional Natural Park has no copyright issues, Draft:Lake Kyzylkol has no issues, Draft:Akbiik Cave (Turkestan region) has no issues, Draft:Historical place Mynsheyit (Turkestan region) has no issues and Draft:Tuttybulak Waterfall has no issues as well. Ordabasy National Historical and Cultural Reserve and Draft:The Otrar State Archaeological Museum-Reserve have close-paraphrasing problems and not an explicit copyright violation. De728631 declined a copyvio-CSD on the Ordabasy article on 12 June 2022. This is why I requested @The4lines to decline and archive the case. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 01:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Moneytrees, Please let me know if you want me to explain anything else. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 01:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it seem that per VRT copyright is not an issue, as other have pointed out the use of the material does not seem beneficial to Wikipedia. The purpose (to advertise the subjects to tourists) of the material means shouldn't be used to verify anything which means additional sources would be needed anyway to verify the claims made by it, at which point the articles could just be rewritten based on the new sources. Even if the material could be used as a source for its claims though, the unencyclopedic tone means it'd be best to rewrite it anyway. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this here, Moneytrees, I agree that it needs further clearing up, though it seems that TheAafi has handled a rather difficult ticket (Ticket:2022052510001544, for the record) properly and well (thank you, TheAafi!). As a temporary measure, I've partial-blocked Turkupt13 from mainspace until at least some of the questions are resolved. So that we know what we're talking about, here is a list of the 55 pages of turkistantravel.com for which we've received permission:

I've made no attempt to connect those to our pages, others should free to edit that list if that seems to be a good idea. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers Thanks for the compliment. I've just tagged the talk pages with permission tags and left the restoration of text to Moneytrees to avoid causing any hectic and mess. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 11:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just from my side of things (I don't have VRT): I tagged Baba Tukti Shashti Aziz Mausoleum as G12 because the content was copied from the website (which was copyrighted) and there was no indication that permission had been given for use on Wikipedia. I see now that it's been stated on the (draft's) talk page, but will the other donated materials without articles fall into a similar situation (get tagged as G12, VRT agent approves text use, CSD declined), or is there a way to prevent this from happening? Apologies if I'm asking something obvious – CP/CCI/VRT-permissions is not my strong suit. Thanks, Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 12:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Giraffer. Before moving to CCI or tagging any article as potential copyright violation, I think we should first check out the talk page of the article creator and see if there's anything helpful. In this case, we have User talk:Turkupt13#Speedy deletion nomination of Sangyl Bi Mausoleum. Even if we receive permission on VRT after an article gets deleted per G12, we can easily restore it if the permissions received are genuine. I don't think dragging issues into CCI is all good every time. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 13:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: the nine articles listed above are all on the list of those for which we have VRT permission, albeit not always under exactly the same title, so I've unblanked those and moved the four that were in mainspace to draft. I remain uncomfortable about the other contribs of the user, and am far from convinced that those are necessarily free of copyvio just because we haven't found any – they may well be direct translations of pages in Central Asian languages, for example. If the CCI were still open I'd suggest going ahead with presumptive removal or deletion of all text added by this user. Would there be consensus here for that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Justlettersandnumbers I don't support restoration of all articles. Those that have been deleted for failing notability should definitely not be restored. The articles that are complete advert blurbs (though from the turkistantravel website) shouldn't be restored either. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 12:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Justlettersandnumbers The other articles also seemed suspicious; I would support presumptive removals as well. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I support presumptive removal. There's indication that there may be copyright issues with most or all of this user's contributions. The harm of presumptive removal would normally be the potential to remove content that is beneficial to Wikipedia and does not have a license issue. However, it seems unlikely that any of this user's current contributions to articles are beneficial to Wikipedia and they could likely each be removed for their own reasons, unrelated to copyright, leaving them seems to do nothing but risk a copyright issue. PHANTOMTECH [TALK] 03:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest that we follow process and do things by the book – i.e., re-open the CCI and blank-and-list the remaining article creations. Does that make sense? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Justlettersandnumbers: I agree with P. removals, although I don't think there is enough for a full case. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 15:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very familiar with CCI, so if a case were opened I wouldn't want to be the one that did it. Again, I'm not very familiar with this area so correct me if I'm wrong, WP:PDEL doesn't seem to indicate a CCI case is necessary for presumptive deletion. Additionally, WP:CCI requests at least 5 clear copyvios for a case whereas here there seem to be no clear copyvios due to donation of the material, only indications that the submissions not donated are also copyvios. PHANTOMTECH [TALK] 20:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• VRT Ticket received, article now licensed and compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. MER-C 15:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]