The current reupload is still a poorly credited rewording of Riley’s article, and it still lifts the article wholesale in wording, structure, facts and research. Even the pacing is the same.
IH didn’t come clean about the copyright infringement, choosing to instead dodge any questions regarding the matter. Now if this was just some spat between creators that we didn’t need to get into as an audience, that wouldn’t be as much of an issue. But the problem with copyright is, either you credit publicly and clearly, or you will be called out for it publicly. It is the same in academia, where a lot of this rigor stems from in the first place. I’m entirely sure the author could claim the current reupload. We won’t know if they have had contact before this version was reuploaded, but we can safely assume they didn’t have any contact whatsoever to greenlight his first upload.
Addressing transgressions like this is also necessary, if not vital, to the YouTube and creator ecosystem that also has to keep itself in check. If you step out of line, you risk this very thing happening. And then it doesn’t matter if it is 2 days or six months or three years, or even older (as Hbomber also points out, there was some deeply racist stuff in IH’s uploads that have since been deleted).