Non-compliant site coordination

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This page is intended to coordinate the efforts to deal with non-compliant sites. See also w:Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance and b:Wikibooks:Mirrors and forks, which list mirrors and how they rate.

Action needed[edit][edit]

They [1] seem to copy whole wikibooks on languages (I checked the English wikibooks on b:en:Italian [2], b:en:French [3] and b:en:Spanish [4]) without attribution nor GFDL (as far as I could see). --Martin Kraus 09:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply][edit]

See, mirror of pt.wikipedia without stating Wikipedia as a source and claiming "All rights reserved" on their licensing. I can't find contact information (looks like a spam site). PatríciaR 15:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Example page:here They only have a tiny mention of, which you can only see if you hover over a link at the very bottom left of the page.. --Versageek 06:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: was blocked by JeLuf. It would appear that this site is related to, as in addition to having many similar characteristics, it is now blocked as well. --Versageek 06:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply][edit]

This profile of Vanna White is a duplicate of the Wikipedia article as early as its the second (and first non-stub) revision of 2 Oct 2004. The site claims in its TOS that it is a provider of third-party content. Thus, it appears that the copyvio is from WP rather than to it, as the external link to this site was not added until much later. MSJapan 05:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EBay[edit] appears to use material from wikipedia's article on Fairport Convention without complying with GFDL. appears to use material from wikipedia's article on Donovan without complying with GFDL.[edit]

Reuses Wikipedia and Wikinews content without proper notices. No action taken yet.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply][edit] appears to use material from wikipedia's article on Guy Fawkes without complying with GFDL. Lurker 17:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply][edit] and the pages references from there are actually a copy of the Wikipedia article on Sudoku split into multiple pages[edit]

The National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre (a Government of Canada website) heavily references wikipedia for their Dangers of Hentai Fact Sheet Unfortunately the Fact Sheet contains numerous factual errors. Jan 13th. (It gives the strong impression anime = porn.)[edit]

Contains information directly copied from Wikipedia articles without GFDL notice. See [5]. Have contacted the administrator of the domain given by WHOIS. —Ruud 02:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Contains information directly copied from Wikipedia articles without GFDL notice. See [6].[edit]

Contains mostly outdated versions of Wikipedia articles. There's a GFDL notice, sort of, but it's not visible by default -- only if you click a link in the footer which uses Javascript to make the notice visible on the page. Site claims copyrght.[edit]

Contains old data of the wiki entries [ ] with no mentioning that it was derived from wikipedia and claims copyright on the information. Can't find an email address on the site either. KittenKlub 17:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

This Comedy Zone article about Neil Innes is lifted word for word from Wikipedia's article with no attribution. There is no apparent contact info on the Comedy Zone website, and they claim copyright of the material. 28 December 2005[edit]

See Top page Seems to be using a great deal of Wikipedia material with no mention of Wikipedia or of GFDL. Zoe ( 17:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply][edit]

see [7] This is a full scale mediawiki instance that slurped a bunch of music-related wikipedia articles with no credit or GFDL notice. Since it's user-editable and aimed at music fans, it is potentially a fork and is in need of GFDL awareness so we can get the changes back. 03:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

see [8] Eclecticology 22:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

see -- 19:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

see -- 19:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

see -- 19:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard violation letter sent. If the webmaster has done nothing as of a month after this post, I recommend going to Ipupdater. They say, "ipUpdater does not accept responsibility of any of its clients illegal use of graphics, forms, scripts, or any type of copyrighted material on the respective clients web pages." Of course, we don't know whether that's true, but asking them to shut wikix down would be worth a try. There is a contact form at . Superm401 | Talk 00:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
First bounced. Sent to other address. Waiting. Superm401 | Talk 20:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

see -- 19:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of copyright violation sent to registrar, because no other contact information available(whois obstructed). They say they'll get back to me; if they do, I'll update this with details. Superm401 | Talk 00:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

see -- 19:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Standard violation letter sent to, but bounced. Superm401 | Talk 01:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Awaiting response from other addresses. Superm401 | Talk 01:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Webmaster has promised to comply. Allow some time. Superm401 | Talk 20:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

see -- 19:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation as . Awaiting response to that email. Superm401 | Talk 01:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

see -- 19:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, same as Awaiting response to that inquiry. Superm401 | Talk 02:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

see -- 19:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

see -- 17:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sent letter requesting better compliance. Superm401 | Talk 06:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

see -- 17:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit] - mirroring at least some wikipedia content with no mention of either GFDL or wikipedia. I've added it to but not done anything else. -- 03:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[edit]

Africa Web games uses texts from en.wikipedia about Africa (f. ex. en:Sahel) with this as the only mention of license: "All text in this document is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation Licens", no links at all, no mention of Wikipedia, and you can't even highlight the text to copy it. --Dittaeva 15:04, September 9, 2005 (UTC)[edit]

Has been mirroring wikipedia for a whole year now. A link and a copyright notice is on the front page, but none of the articles have any acknowledgement of source or copyright.
See for example -- 23:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

I'm not sure how they are doing it, but has encoded Wikipedia articles on languages into their keyword searches without the articles showing on the page under "info about the language". If you take a phrase from any of Wikipedia's language articles and search Google, that keyword phrase is displayed verbatim in the description for the resultant page from that website, e.g. search word 'Zuni world view' results in with a verbatim phrase from Wiki's article without the article displayed anywhere on the page. I don't know if they are using wikipedia, or a mirror site. This would seem to be a violation of fair use and I think action needs to be taken. They have not answered my inquiries.User:amerindianarts

  • Language school User: answered by deleting the page twice and claiming I am accusing of copyright infringement. That is not the issue. Copyleft violation is the issue. Language school is using the articles for the purposes of unwarranted success in the search engines. The text of the articles does not show on their pages. They do not link back to Wikipeida or mirror sites, cite GDFL or In some cases they offer no instruction for the language they advertise. They claim that they have a right to use the articles as 'hidden text' and that that is in accordance with GDFL and User:Amerindianarts
    • I think I have figured out how they are doing this. If you search google as described above and get a hit one one of these pages from and click the cached link, you will see a much different page than the one which is actually there. It seems that they give a different page whenever google indexes their webpage. I did a little research (thru google, of course) and found that this practice is referred to as "cloaking" in the webmaster community. The webserver can modify a page based on the user agent identification sent in the HTML request. I'm probably explaining this too much so see and if you want to know more. It seems that indicates some 17,100 pages have been indexed by google in this way. Since this site seems to be "abusing Google's quality guidelines" by cloaking, I've reported it at I also reported it to MSN. (Yahoo does not have these pages in it's index) I hope this will fix the problem in this instance, but I don't know how long that could take.
  • That sounds reasonable and I think the complaints have succeeded. 02:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC) 02:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit][edit]

I'm copying this from the 'Mirrors and forks - low compliance' Wikipedia page, since I believe rapid action is needed - Mark Dingemanse 22:32, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Objectssearch Encyclopedia - 'the free encyclopedia'
  • Only links back to, does not link back to original article.
  • Mentions GFDL, linking to
  • This site is stealing Wikipedia bandwidth. When looking up an article, the script get.jsp queries the server realtime , strips the result down to the text alone and places it its own page. Evidence: I tested various pages that I knew had changed very recently. They all returned the most recent version.
  • The best example is of course looking up the main page: Main Page!
  • Needs action. Probably standard letter is not enough. Someone who is more fluent and eloquent than I am in English, please help. - Mark Dingemanse (talk) 21:32, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have send a request to Wikitech-l to block those ***holes Walter 17:34, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Those *§69!%# are blocked. Hail Brion! Walter 08:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems there are miriads of encyclopedias that fit your description. Look at Lithuanian encyclopedia, then go to language links - it seems that clones of many languages are made and placed under different domains. lt:User:dirgela[edit]

  • getgourmetrecipes are stealing our bandwidth by displaying a non-local copy of our text and images on their site. Angela 03:28, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Update: I spoke to Jamesday about this on IRC and he claims bandwidth theft is a relatively minor cost, so sites are no longer being blocked for this. Angela 21:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)[edit]

  • is stealing Wikipedia bandwidth, downloading articles in realtime from the Italian wikipedia. See for example [10] (section "Collegamenti esterni" added 20:26 UTC, Feb 9, 2005 with this diff). Several other pages tested. It also says at the bottom that all content is public domain (!). Please block this site. Alfio 20:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    Looks to me more like they call it GNU FDL. Google translation: "All the contained information in this page are usable liberations riproducibi and in any context. It is not necessary to ask no permission in order to capture them and to use them in whichever way, to exception of the reproducing images marks or regstrati symbols, like marked close to they." Below that it has a yellow box saying: "Contenuto disponibile sotto GNU Free Documentation License." with the copyleft logo. (r3m0t not logged in)[edit] "Copyright © 2004 All rights reserved." No mention of the GFDL or Wikipedia on their pages or their legal notices page. w:en:user:119 06:53, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

now shows GFDL notice, links to , links to wikipedia individual articles.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Calendar".

--Yonghokim 02:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also If you edit here then laborlawtalk is modified also. 18:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

site dead. may 2005[edit] Contains a verbatim copy of a version of Spanish Inquisition. I certainly didn't expect that. 20:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit][edit][edit] vs. and many similar examples. I sent an e-mail at 8th November and wait for reply. --Derbeth 18:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No response. Serious violation of Wikibooks copyrights. --Derbeth 08:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply][edit]

I sent a mail, no response. Replaced from Wikipedia to it's webpage's name. Has "Copyright © 2003-2004 Zeeshan Muhammad. All rights reserved. Legal notices." in the bottom. -- WB 08:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Have sent an email regarding pages like [11]. Details at w:Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Jkl#L. Johnleemk 22:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply][edit]

They are copying entire Wikipedia articles claiming "Copyright Travel 2 World 2004-2005". I have sent a standard GFDL violation email. Mushroom 12:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No answer. I have sent a new one after a long time. Mushroom 17:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply][edit]

Some versions of the "Fun Facts" lists at [12] include Wikipedia quotes. Note that that is a dynamically-generated page and shows different versions (apparently at random) on successive reloads; I see Wikipedia quotes on the "PUBLISHING", "TRADE", and "BOOKS" variants. The quotes are credited with the note "Source:" but no link and no GFDL information. Site is provided under license terms at [13] which include such howlers as forbidding you from making a link to the site if you're publishing criticism of them. 19:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In progress[edit]

A warning was sent to the non-compliant site with the warning that access (referrer, ip) will be blocked if there's no change.[edit]

I don't know what to do in this case. Site appears to be outdated mirror of Wikibooks - but has no link to source. --Derbeth 19:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To block[edit]

No reaction, please block these. Include the ip (in case of proxies) or the referrer (in case of deep linking/framing). and[edit]

  • not GFDL compliant, Webmaster knows this. [14]
  • PLS Notice:There are several mirror-Websites of the one mentioned above, they are listed on the German WP above.--Nerd 15:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)[edit]

[15] (for example)

  • Uses old copies of Wikipedia
  • no back link to Wikipedia indirect back link to wikipedia ("about this page") but link points to a 404.
  • append their own ads to bottom of page
  • assert the right to modify terms and conditions of use
  • No GFDL acknowledgement
  • However the About Us link contains the following: is powered by PHP, mySQL and Wikipedia each linked to *local articles, and the Wikipedia article links to
  • Violation letter sent October 21 2004 Sjc 09:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No change, still in violation. Sjc 19:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • No change so far. But this doesn't seem to have been reported so far - at the bottom of each article there is a "About this article" link which in turn directs you to links for edit this article talk page etc. I think the owner of that site has a serious business mentality issue, like everything needs to be very formal etc, but then had to deal with GFDL. My guess. --Yonghokim 02:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also: en:Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, de:Wikipedia:Projekte, die Wikipedia als Quelle benutzen[edit]

  • Copies Polish Wiktionary
  • Example: (available within an hour since creation of the entry)
  • Live copy, see above
  • No information about the source of the entries or license. Additionally, the website uses name Wiktionary (Wikisłownik) in its title. No contact information.
  • DNS domain operator refused to provide contact to the site owner, suggesting taking legal actions instead.
  • --Derbeth 11:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]