Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive234

As everyone knows I like to keep a very, very low profile, so I'm sure my appearance here will come as a surprise to everyone. But I had to speak out. Just had to. I am a brand new member of the WP:Department of Fun and was really looking forward to our big annual event: April Fools. Being my first April Fools I wanted to celebrate with gusto. I "updated" Obama's picture on the Obama portal, and gave equal time to the right wingers by adding a caricature to the Timeline of modern American conservatism, and I created a really cool bot too. What did I get for my efforts? Barnstar? Awesome Wikipedian day? {{Filet-O-Fish}}? No, no and NO! Quick reverts and vandalism warnings on my talk page. Vandalism?!? That edit to the Obama portal was hilarious! What is the matter with you people? Can't you take the plugs out of your asses for just one day out of the year? My goodness another celebrant got blocked! We need to make some changes around here. April Fools is an important holiday and we can't abuse and screw over people who are trying to make things fun around here. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

re: Awesome Wikipedian: to my knowledge the last one was awarded on 21 February 2011 by User:Neutralhomer, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, sometimes too much is too much, as the other thread above pretty much proves.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Fun is important, but even on April 1st, people need access to accurate information to get stuff done. We can have find ways to have fun without disrupting reliability, but it takes care. Dcoetzee 05:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Two observations:

• Barack Obama is a
  living person
  .
• Your other edits were made on 2 April. →Στc. 05:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This still needs to be merged into this and then deleted. We don't want to confuse the bots in 50 years' time. Double sharp (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To summarize:

• You committed several acts of vandalism, which you believe were justified because of a date that already had passed (according to UTC, on which Wikipedia is based) by the time of your second edit.
• Your vandalism was reverted and you were warned against perpetrating any more. You find this outrageous because you consider your vandalism "hilarious" and had fun committing it.
• In addition to complaining (and demanding that the community embrace vandalism) here, you've
  proposed
  a method of delaying future vandalism's detection, thereby ensuring that it remains in place longer (instead of being quickly removed by "humorless bores" who believe that the encyclopedia shouldn't be vandalised).

Did I miss anything? —

David Levy

10:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a standing gentleman's agreement that shenanigans will be accepted, so long as they do not disrupt the main space. This year much disruption of the main space was undertaken - to the extent that instead of ranging from "mildly amusing to peurile and idiotic" (seriously; the lack of creativity in the jokes was depressing to the extreme) they ranged from "idiotic to disruptive". I'd have blocked you on BLP grounds for re-inserting that image for a second time, so I suspect you were lucky. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Joke in the article mainspace, like this, is inappropriate. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 13:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest going to back to keeping a low profile. The treatment you got was deserved. —SW— ^yak 13:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all the above comments. Lionelt, you were lucky not to have gotten yourself blocked and if you try this shenanigans again you won't be so lucky a second time around. Raul654 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, abouut 95% of the April fools stuff discussed here and elsewhere has been just irritating and disruptive, with no real humor about it. North8000 (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The April Fool's Day "celebrations" are disruptive, annoying and almost universally unfunny. I would rather see Wikipedia shut down for one day out of the year than deal with the days of unneeded cleanup that we suffer through every year. Even the "gentlemen's agreement" to keep the disruption out of the mainspace failed. This year, for example, someone created a fake deletion nomination for Rugby football. They never tagged the page, thinking that would make it okay, but ignored the fact that we have maintenance bots that spent all day trying to "fix" the omitted template. It's past time we outgrew this annual farce. We have enough trouble cleaning up the existing vandalism. We don't need to inflict even more on ourselves. Rossami (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Lionel, to help you celebrate, I tagged all the articles in

I also gave him a Fillet-O-Fish. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the OP's past partisanship has partially spoiled his present pursuit of playfulness. El duderino (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Changing standards

Why the changing standards? We've always accepted this kind of fun — for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (2nd nomination) isn't mentioned anywhere in the nominator's relevant talk archive. When you do something that's been accepted in the past and are threatened for it, it's quite absurd. Nyttend (talk) 21:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm lazy, but did that involve a notice placed on Earth? Otherwise, it happened entirely out of article space, and thus is considered okay. The problem with the above is that he made the changes to mainspace articles on April 2, then complained when they were called out as vandalism. --Golbez (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As I noted here this morning, I think we've evolved past the point where such things are feasible. The tent is too big. Tarc (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nyttend, having organized the 2006 and 2007 April Fool's activities, it's a shame that April Fools day was achieved with such negativity this year. Lionel actions was unacceptable as it disrupted a few namespace articles, but in good faith. Most April Fools jokes are in Wikipedia mainspace, in which only the most experienced editors usually participate and it supposed to be a good laugh for an hour or two, and removed with no harm, and almost every other major website participates as well. I'm beyond shocked. Secret ^account 21:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I just saw the posting above, comparing it from 2006 to 2012, April Fools went way beyond overboard this year, and kinda disruptive, over 40 XFD nominations!!, so I'm striking above. Back in 2006/2007 there was like two or three. Secret ^account 23:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This should be closed now There is already ongoing discussions over at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Ban April Fools pranks and down from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (2nd nomination) was actually one of mine rather than Wolfkeeper's, (the threading got rather messed up in that one) and no of course I didn't template the article. Perhaps what we need to do for next year is to make sure that there are one or two non-mainspace jokes to set the example. I disagree with Tarc's big tent analogy - the community today is smaller than when we had User:Useight/Requests for signatureship. The problem is that it has started to drift back from humour in wiki space back to vandalism in mainspace, I gather that was the problem with April Fools six or seven years afo. But the solution to vandalism is to revert, block and ignore it. ϢereSpielChequers 09:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

At AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Sian O'Callaghan (2nd nomination), allegedly as "Law enforcement in the UK has requested deletion of this page in order to mitigate pre-trial publicity and ensure a fair trial for the defendant. The page can be restored later if the event remains notable.", per User:Fred Bauder

There is an obvious censorship issue here. Today an article about an alleged murder (and who could want to see a murderer escape justice?), but tomorrow do we see the UK government trying to cover up

Secondly there's an internal question of procedure. Consensus is clearly to keep this, yet Fred has blanked the article as a de facto censorship of it anyway. So if there's a legal requirement on WMF to do this anyway, why even bother having the AfD? This looks far too much as if AfD was given the opportunity to give the right answer, but when they failed to, they were over-ruled anyway.

On the whole, I'm surprised I haven't seen this here already - it's not just the usual run of AfDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you not know how to spell 'alleged'? Evidently not - I have taken the liberty of adding it where you clearly intended it to go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've already raised this at ANI... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It is our encyclopedic content which is not censored, we do not, as a matter of policy, include news reports of criminal investigations, see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators. We are a reference work not a news outlet. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP of crime perpetrators can still be followed without the deletion or significant redaction of the article. All you have to do is remove the portions of the article that mention a perpetrator and leave the rest that has reliable sources. There's a reason the U.K.-based websites that were reporting on it disappeared in the references, because U.K. law enforcement can ask U.K. websites like The Guardian, BBC and the Daily Mail to take it down. Wikipedia is subject to U.S. law, not U.K., so it would be no different than the People's Republic of China requesting deletion of the article about their firewall. All they can do is request it be taken down, and that's what happened. There's really no reason to remove any content outside of the BLP perpetrators content (specifically naming a non-public individual who had not been convicted, it's entirely fine to say there was an arrest and if there is a trial, they are rightfully named). — Moe ε 17:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither the Russian nor the Chinese case is before us. They would represent difficult questions, although not in obviously political cases; in that case we can stiff them; the problem comes in alleged criminal cases which are actually political in a situation where we have no way of determining the matter and are forced to assume general corruption which is not in fact the case. I would like to be able to respond in good faith to requests from either country.

U.K. law enforcement can ask us too and we can respond responsibly. We can do the right thing because it is right, not because we are ordered to. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"not because we are ordered to."

Would I be correct to read that as "In this case at least, we weren't ordered to"? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective in the United States, yes. I'm not sure what our obligations are under English law. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Had this been (exactly) a year ago, I might agree, because that's when the event had a majority of it's press as it was unfolding. A year ago, the article was 15 times as long as it is now in its current state. While I think you redacting the article and the U.K. government are doing so in good faith, that doesn't necessarily mean that it ensures the defendant in this case that he receives a fair trial. In fact, having been a year removed from it being a highly notable event, you're not likely to receive an entirely fair trail whether the material stays or goes. Information such as details in the case and the defendant's name are still all over the internet that anyone with Google or an internet archive can find. All the U.K. government did is request the news articles we were linking to be removed hoping this article be removed. This is unquestionably notable so the AFD needs to be closed, because there is undeniably a support for keeping the article and keeping it hostage with a protection and AFD is inappropriate. My recommendation is semi-protection with a discussion to re-add specific content so that it doesn't interfere with the impending trial. The article needs a good amount of its content restored while respecting the defendant's character, because without it, censoring the content like you have gives a false pretense that it isn't notable when it is. As for doing the "right thing", the right thing isn't to give a false impression of the article not being notable or to aid or give any government the authority to dictate notability. Orders from any government authority should be taken with a grain of salt in determining their true intentions. With that being said, we don't know their intentions, good or bad, which leads me to believe that unless there is a lawsuit where an office action occurs we shouldn't be ordered or comply to do anything unless it violates a law. — Moe ε 18:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

News reports of a criminal investigation are not a reliable source for our purposes with or without a request. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Since that is a plainly false statement in view of standard practice per

WP:RS, I can only imagine you intended it as a proposal for a policy change -- in which case it belongs at a relevant policy talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk

) 19:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That kind of goes against standards at

WP:RS like Nomoskedasticity said. In addition to that, when a source is a news article and a government starts pulling them down from the internet censoring it, it alters its notability by Wikipedia's own standards. Notability is defined by how many reliable sources cover the topic, so you can see the problem when news agencies start having to censor their publications. I hope you can see the problem with a haphazard compliance with a government request to remove such things. — Moe ε

21:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be way too much conspirary theory stuff going on here. The removal of information and restrictions on publishing information in local sources on ongoing trials (

Jean Charles de Menezes or the Chinese firewall are missing the point. As I said elsewhere, and I'm pretty sure I've said before, I see no reason not to comply with a similar request from the Chinese, or anyone else. But the request has to be similar. Nil Einne (talk

) 02:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember now there was the case of Peter Tobin, see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 20#Current legal cases & Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive177#Admin deletes article per Scottish police (probably more discussion in other areas) Nil Einne (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Allegations are not encyclopediac - and we should actually extend this to all such implicit violations of

We need beyond oversighting to community consensus on defamatory material of that nature. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

All I can say about this situation is. End the censoring of information on the article now.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• As this was (apparently) a request from UK law enforcement agencies (and not a private individual asking for information to be removed from their article), it should have been handed to the WMF. The WMF have access to legal counsel, who can advise whether or not the request should be complied with. If it should be, the article should be deleted as an office action. I am going to close the AfD - as "the UK police asked us to delete it" is not a valid reason within Wikipedia policy to propose deletion of an article. I am going to refer it to the WMF. I am not going to unlock the article, but I will take over the protection from Fred. The reason I am not unlocking it is that I want to see what the legal advice from the WMF counsel is, and I do not think the world will end if the article remains a stub for the next 24 hours. I apologise for not picking up on this sooner, would probably have saved some hard words. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The need to lift full protection is not an emergency, so fine -- but if it is not deleted then it must be unprotected. What we've had here is an admin using admin powers to dictate content according to an idiosyncratic view of BLP policy -- ostensibly to remove information about a crime suspect but in fact removing a great deal of material that was not about the suspect. The issue here is not the article but rather the role of admins. (Since the ANI thread along these lines was closed, I'll pursue that issue here.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: there was a parallel discussion going on here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Improper use of full protection? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Motion to restore article in full

1. As nom. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No: this was an office action and thus isn't allowed to be undeleted by community consensus. Nyttend (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That's absurd. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

On what basis do you assert, Nyttend, that this was an office action? There is no office template on the page and there is no indication that User:Fred Bauder was acting, or was authorized to act, on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, or indeed anyone but himself. If I've overlooked some place where this was claimed to be an office action, please let me know. If this were indeed an office action, it should certainly have been noted as such in the edit summaries and on the appropriate talk pages, and marked by the appropriate templates. We're not expected to read minds. - Nunh-huh 04:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Fred Bauder did not act for WMF, but on an OTRS ticket he probably should have referred to the office. As I understand it, Elen of the Roads did refer the matter and said it would only be 24 hours however she's doesn't control WMF. Although an individual arb is entitled to no special deference, I'd be inclined to give the office time to work, though updates should be posted even if they are only "no news yet".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I put an update on the talkpage in the small hours, and had a discussion with whoever was about. I am about to cautiously unlock the article down to semi protection. For various reasons, I'm not prepared to fully unlock it yet, but the input from IP editors at the talkpage is welcome. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK, sorry, didn't look there.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that the page was unilaterally deleted without qualifying under any criterion that normal admins are allowed to use, I figured that it was an office deletion; except of course for copyvios, I can't remember ever seeing an OTRS complaint being used to justify an immediate deletion without discussion and without fulfilling one of the CSD. For that reason, I figured that it was an appropriate office deletion, but now that I understand that it's not an office action, I am not at all pleased about this situation. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with the "I am not at all pleased about this situation." thought. This appears to be the action of an OTRS volunteer who is using their position to become an "activist". The only mitigating factor here is that the article appears to be receiving quite a bit of constructive attention now (even if I disagree with the idea that we (Wikipedia as a whole, rather than individual editors) should be concerned with the 'orders' of police in the UK (or anywhere else), it's hard to argue with the results in the article as of the last I saw it... other than the fact that I couldn't really have participated in crafting the article, even if I had wanted to.). As long as there's not going to be a repeat of this episode, I don't think that it's worth the "dramaz" to make anything more out of it, personally.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• oppose If this is an office action, then the question is moot. If it isn't an office action, then we hide the article until it becomes clear it won't turn into one, and it returns a day or two later. That's reasonable compromise.

I'm not concerned here whether this article is blanked or deleted by an office action. I accept that some things are enforced by the WMF, for the best of reasons. If that's the case, then fine. I'm not screaming about government censorship - or at least not here at WP:AN, directed at the WMF.

What I am still concerned about though is two-fold. Firstly, why is this about deletion at all? Surely the existence of the case, and its notability is beyond doubt, and there can be no reasonable case for pretending the case isn't taking place - jurors will know this much at least. The real question, and the scope of an office action, is the extent of a sub judice blanking notice upon that page, stating that the case exists, is at trial, and that anything else is suppressed for the duration. If we have to act in that way because it's either a legal requirement by applicable law, or considered to be legally prudent to act so by WMF's counsel, then let's do that and be open about it.

Secondly, I'm still concerned over the AfD. If this was happening because of an office action, then an AfD is moot - so let's not pretend that there was ever anything up for the editor community to have any influence over! If this wasn't an office action, then the AfD was firstly unnecessary and secondly should not have been closed on the basis that it was.

I don't much like the WMF. Funny that, they've built this place - there's a lot to be grateful for. Yet of the few times I've encountered their actions (and

WP:IEP still rankles), I find them to be needlessly secretive and worst of all, disrespectful of the editor community. Editors built this content, yet the WMF behave as if the editor community must not only be dictated to (perhaps it must, if that was counsel's advice here - I'm OK with that) but also the editors can't even be trusted with the information as to whether they're in control or being listened to. The worst sort of censorship is when it's no longer even permitted to discuss that censorship is taking place. Andy Dingley (talk

) 11:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Andy, in full.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The original lock and proposal for deletion were not done at the behest of the WMF but by an OTRS volunteer. WMF are of the view that absent a legally binding order, the community should decide how to tackle this issue, given all the aspects. See more below and at the article talkpage.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely pitiful

It's sad that for all the claims of user-based governance and so forth, and for that matter, being hosted in a country where the UK's law enforcement has no authority, does nothing to prevent Wikipedia from hopping when some UK cop says frog. If the office folks have such a lack of spine, then perhaps they should be removed and replaced with someone more in tune with the community. Jtrainor (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, what happened to the whole "we are not censored, even when governments don't like it" thingie? Or do we have the backbone of jello?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Final update

Matter is now resolved - article has not been deleted, is semi-protected. Please read the article talkpage, where discussion is even now taking place as to the best way to present content in line with Wikipedia policies - which are what matter here.

On the "what to do if this happens again" question, the advice given to OTRS volunteers probably wants reviewing. The Foundation is clear that it will only take down content on receipt of a notice from a court of competent jurisdiction (I think the phrase is), so OTRS volunteers should not be deleting articles or starting deletion discussions on the basis of a request of this kind. However, Wikipedia editors are expected to edit in line with policy for one thing, and for another, editors in the country where the trial is taking place may be subject to local laws relating to sub judice, and should be made aware of this. It is therefore reasonable to (for example) hat note the article, or put the English jurisdiction sub judice tempate on the talkpage, or edit the article to remove information sourced to less than impeccable

Should the AFD be resumed? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No I closed it (if only to stop the bloody bot readding the template). "The rozzers asked us to delete it" was never a sound policy reason, so I kept it (although without prejudice to the person who started, who I honestly believe thought he was doing the right thing). If the community wants to start another one on Wikipedia policy grounds, that option is fully available. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we have a batch new users with accounts starting with JMU*. I'm guessing that is "James Madison University" (based on some of the edits they've done). It would be nice if we could find whomever is heading up this group, determine what they are attempting to do & get proper welcomes distributed before we scare them all off ;-) . --Versageek 18:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Try {{welcome student}} and {{welcome teacher}} if you find the teacher. Usually assignments involve posting to the teacher's page at some point. Valfontis (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Link to usernames starting w/ JMU. (keep an eye on the create dates). Valfontis (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I see 16 accounts starting with JMU created on 2 April. According to the list of current

USEP classes there's only one class at JMU and they're well past the new accounts stage. It seems strange to me because even for classroom assignments involving Wikipedia, it would be strange for students to all choose names starting with JMU. MyNameWasTaken (talk

) 04:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not all instructors make the community aware of their class projects. And I've seen at least one other project where all the students used a similar naming scheme. In that case the teacher ended up staying and making a bunch of valuable contributions, even some FAs. Valfontis (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can an admin swing by and look at

•  Done --Fæ (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little worried that the user's contributions are a little advertisingish at times. [1]

Consider Joseph Lani, David Jerome (author), Stone Bridge Homes NW, and others, possibly. 86.** IP (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi. What's up?Expewikiwriter (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Stonebridge Homes is pure puff/advert. Non-notable awards as a show of notability? 6th place in a non-notable "competition" is somehow notable? The President is non-notable by any means. I'd swear the person is being paid to write adverts on Wikipedia (

BWilkins ←track

) 13:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I see your point. I'm familiar with the company through a friend's son, who is employed there. My friend knows I've written Wikipedia articles (a passion of mine, for no pay - I'm a retired school teacher) and asked me to consider writing one for this company. I probably tried a little too hard to make it fit Wikipedia's standard for notability. I will take this as a reminder to be more vigilant in the future. For that, I thank you. Expewikiwriter (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Please help me to understand the problem with David Jerome (author); does the article not make clear his notability? Thanks.Expewikiwriter (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a little hard to separate out te threads in it, as it's covering two sides of the person, but a lot of it's sourced to his website, and it's not clear how notable some of the mentions are. Maybe I just don't understand what counts as notable for a humour writer, as notability is relative. Can someone else look? 86.** IP (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, 86. In the meantime, do you really think the article warrants a proposed deletion tag? Expewikiwriter (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Think you're right on that one. Could do with discussion first. However, note that just because you worked on an article doesn't mean you can't remove a tag, so, you know, do feel free. Also note that, if something is mistakenly deleted that way, the decision may be reversed simply by contesting the deletion. The procedure is meant as a sort of testing of the waters, to see if anyone has other views. 86.** IP (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was willing to give Expewikiwriter the benefit of the doubt until this happened. Not sure if this is trolling or socking or meatpuppeting, but it's weird. I'd be curious to hear an explanation for that edit. Valfontis (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Expewikiwriter also uploaded a logo that goes with this other user's draft. An SPI might be in order. Valfontis (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter. The choice of username is lighting up my spam radar in a big way. MER-C 02:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

How unfortunate. 86.** IP (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter - Looks like it's been confirmed. How incredibly unfortunate. 86.** IP (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked and tagged the socks but not the main account. I've got a list of over 40 articles that appear to have been created for promotion. What a mess. Regarding: "I'm familiar with the company through a friend's son, who is employed there. My friend knows I've written Wikipedia articles (a passion of mine, for no pay - I'm a retired school teacher)" it seems to me like a strange selection of articles for a retired teacher to write. I wonder how they got permission to use the photos. Valfontis (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've blocked the main account. I have little doubt that this is a professional spammer, but in any case it is a user who has gone to some efforts to be deceptive, and has abused several accounts.

talk

) 07:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The blocked socks are now asking for help, one, right after, another. Can someone more patient than me explain things to "them"(?)? Valfontis (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think they understand perfectly well, and are just playing their game beyond to the end. it's not even worth blocking talk p. access, though I wouldn't oppose it. All we need do is watch for whatever new socks there will be. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree, it's all about the future socks. It's interesting that the socks are claiming to be students and the puppetmaster is a former schoolteacher. Hm. tedder (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a

2tor, Inc. created by Expewikiwriter. It was nice of "them" to reveal their location. Valfontis (talk

) 01:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly it's not possible for you to know the intent of any author. TheExpewikiwriter account has been deemed in violation of one or more Wikipedia policies and has been cancelled as punishment. But the articles written by the account holders (several authors contributed Wikipedia articles through this one account) should be judged on their own merits (is the article spam? is the article objectively written? is the article sufficiently supported by legitimate secondary sources?). It appears that a few expewikiwriter articles have been indiscriminately deleted or tagged for the purpose of rendering punishment on the account holder(s). Consider the following:

• Harold J. Morowitz - The subject is a leading, and internationally known, scientist. The author of this article is a published researcher and professional associate of a colleague of Dr. Morowitz. Judge for yourselves, but it would appear that the article meets all standards for a Wikipedia article on a living person, and should not be tagged.
• 2tor, Inc.
  - Covered extensively in the national press, this company is one of the most important players in online education. No less than 4 experienced Wikipedia authors collaborated on this article. Because it had been posted and removed once before (please see the record), all due care was taken to make sure that this article would meet Wikipedia standards. In particular, care was taken to write it OBJECTIVELY and NEUTRALLY, and to support EVERY fact and detail with a legitimate reference source. Review and decide whether this article should have been summarily removed - and consider re-establishing it in Wikipedia.
• Joseph Lani - After hearing Lani on national late night talk radio for the third or fourth time (he is a familiar radio guest to late night talk radio fans), the author of this article decided that Lani deserved a presence on Wikipedia. The author did research, found articles, and wrote the article.Whatsongisit4578 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

...You know, it's fairly obvious you're the same user. You aren't allowed to violate your block by creating a new account. 86.** IP (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG, you just keep digging yourself in deeper, "Expewikiwriter". Valfontis (talk

) 19:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've asked for another sockpuppet check. Probably obvious, but keep getting new ones, so... Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Expewikiwriter 86.** IP (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

For those playing along at home, three new IPs have contested proposed deletions of four articles created by Expewikiwriter. 38.96.37.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 98.116.123.25 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 50.9.6.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Valfontis (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Other new users voicing an opinion on the works of Expewikiwriter include Phage434 (talk · contribs) Peace2012now (talk · contribs), Davidlomax (talk · contribs), 209.177.103.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and 98.207.154.218 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Valfontis (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it kind of pointless to delete prods while people are clearly paying attention? I mean, prods are at least reversible; AfDs aren't. 86.** IP (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the system worked the way it was supposed to, and people weren't !voting "delete" as a means of

look for sources before !voting. P.S. Here's a new IP also 173.73.144.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Note IP 209* is from clarkhuotcocoon and IP 38* is from budovideos. Valfontis (talk

) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Another one. Special:Contributions/TechnicsSL1200 (though he may have a point in that case) 86.** IP (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

One more SPA: Molly Staples (talk · contribs) (NewOrleans.com) Valfontis (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Anarchangel (talk · contribs)

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this user's admission here: [2], specifically,

So I will break with my tradition of taking articles off-site without mention. It is transcribed to http://hippie.wikia.com/wiki/Mundane_astrology and should be reintroduced at a later time.

That's problematic, because Creative Commons requires the authors to be credited. If Anarchangel is taking articles offsite, claiming them as his or her own, then putting them back on Wikipedia later, without crediting the original authors, that's basically a massive copyfraud, and it needs dealt with. 86.** IP (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You need to complain to the relevant people at Wikia, then, who can actually deal with it. 87.114.248.222 (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's apparently bringing them back here, after some time, but without the names of the people who made the original, it's copyvio. 86.** IP (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

In which case, any articles which he brings back should be examined by an admin to see if the article is a copyvio - if such is the case, the user should likely be barred from such acts. Collect (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What part of the {{WPN}} template did you fail to understand?

If someone else wishes to reintroduce material that was previously on Wikipedia, on my recommendation, then that is their business. I certainly never have personally, and I have no plans to do so in the foreseeable future. However, if there is a policy that restricts that, then I should like to know right now, because it would be wrong and I should like to have my say about it. Anarchangel (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just policy, it's a legal issue. If the article is deleted on Wikipedia, the history of edits is gone. By pating that work back into Wikipedia, you are re-introducing that material without the required attribution for all those edits. Thus, it violates the license. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see the rationale. However, this is also the same as reintroducing an article from Userpace, or reintroducing an article that was previously deleted. In both those cases, the edit history is available to administrators, yes? So since the edit history is still available, there is no licence violation, no? Anarchangel (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Bit late to reply, had family matters to take care of. In the case of an article moved to Userspace, or deleted on Wikipedia, if it is moved back to article space and/or undeleted, the page history is there for all to see. However, if you just copy & paste the contents to a new article, none of that history is attached and, therefore, it has no attributions. And that's a license violation.

If you really want to recreate a deleted/userfied article, ask an admin to move it or go through

WP:DRV to have it undeleted. However, if you republish the article's contents anywhere else (including a different Wikipedia article or new version of the previous article) you must include attribution for all the edits with the republished article. Otherwise, it's a violation of the license. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

20:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that the "What part of WPN" questions leads me to a serious concern that there may be a deep misunderstanding here. :/ "Wikipedia" does not own the copyright to that content; the individual contributors who contribute the material do. It is *they* who must be attributed. Providing a link to the article (not the AFD), so long as it is still alive, is regarded as sufficient attribution. If it is not still alive, you need a full list of authors. This is the reason why the content cannot be reintroduced to Wikipedia; without the history of the article, which includes the full list of authors, or a complete list using that content is a violation of the license granted by the contributors and hence of their copyright. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

See my query, above. The edit history exists, somewhere, surely? Anarchangel (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, thank you for noting the distinction. If the answer is no, the edit history does not exist, then I will take care to note the names of the individual contributors, probably on the destination talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit history existing somewhere, only for administrators, doesn't help I'm afraid. :) Attribution must be accessible to comply with the license. When material is introduced form userspace, there's no licensing issue as long as the user who is introducing is the author - you retain rights over your own material and don't have to attribute it. Articles should not be reintroduced after prior deletion; their history is supposed to be restored at the same time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, if you've copied content from articles that have now been deleted, I'd be happy to help you get a list of authors that can be put on the talk pages of the Wikia page. That would satisfy attribution requirements just as well as the link. I'm afraid I'd just need a list and - if the list is long- time. :)

--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Of the 44 articles, all attributed as containing Wikipedia content, most have been redirected at AfD or kept, and thus have an edit history which not only exists, but is easily accessible. Some are originals. And then there are this seven, which were actually deleted after AfD. I gladly take you up on your kind offer of contributor lists. If you would prefer, just go ahead and ctrl-c; I'll do the parsing:

• Puget Trough prairie butterfly (moved to -flies, it says on the AfD), Nude & Breast Freedom Parade, Energy Art, High fibre composting, Northern California Solar Regatta, Virginia Good. Anarchangel (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• At your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, are you saying that it's illegal to copy content from Wikipedia?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all. It is not only legal, but encouraged. :) However, the content has licensing requirements that must be met. wmf:Terms of Use explains these requirements; where possible, a hyperlink or URL to the article or a stable version of the article, with history, is sufficient attribution. Where this is not available, a list of all authors will do it. It may be illegal to copy content without meeting the terms of the license, considering all factors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess that this is about deleted content though (...right?), so... if content has been deleted from here, then how can there still be licensing issues at all?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Copyright doesn't disappear when content goes out of publication; if it did, there'd be a whole lot more material we could reproduce. : ) Under the US laws that govern Wikipedia, the term of copyright is 70 years after the death of the author or, where the author is unknown (as will often be the case with Wikipedia content), 95 years after publication/120 years after creation (on Wikipedia, it would be the 95, since this constitutes publication). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, agreed, but if the content has been deleted from here then how does anyone know who the author(s) was(were)? Does the WMF hold the copyright on the content of deleted articles, since it's not possible to determine who the contributors were? I somehow doubt that we're talking about content that is "out of publication" (how would that even be determined?), if it's been "destroyed".
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted content never actually goes away - it and its history are still visible to admins, and if it is ever to be used again its whole history can be restored. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but how does that address the original issue here? As User:Moonriddengirl said above: "The edit history existing somewhere, only for administrators, doesn't help I'm afraid."
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have much idea where you're going with this. :) So I'll just try to explain the way this works. John creates an article on Wikipedia. He doesn't give it to the WMF or even to Wikipedia; he owns the copyright. He licenses it liberally for modification and reuse, provided the terms of the licenses are met. The licenses require, among other things, that John receive attribution. Anyone - whether another Wikipedia contributor or a book publisher or a website owner - is free to reuse John's content, so long as they honor the license agreement. If they do not honor the license agreement, they may be infringing John's copyright (a matter for a court to determine, based on weighing a number of factors). The fact that some contributor or contributors on Wikipedia delete the article in which John originally placed the content doesn't change anything; there's nothing in our Terms of Use terminating licensing requirements upon article deletion. (WMF does not hold copyright on the content of deleted articles; the original contributors do...and always will, until copyright expires under the terms of US law.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Except that there is no copyright on Wikipedia. When we release anything we've created on Wikipedia, it's released as Creative Commons which isn't copyright, we're allowing free use of the material , it says so at the bottom of the page,

so copyright doesn't even figure into this discussion.

Creative Commons , simply put means :
We are free to:

to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and to Remix—to adapt the work Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.) Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Further, we can't copyright our own work here, nor can we waive Creative Commons or revoke it. There's no copyright on Wikipedia, just creative commons, so the usual "life of the author...." doesn't apply. Just my two cents. @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 19:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is, because American copyright law holds that copyright automatically exists when copyrightable material is created or published. Here that material has specifically not been released into the public domain, but has been licensed for use under the terms listed above, which does not change the status of the copyright -- which is, precisely, the right to determine how your material will be used. You can't license something if you don't own it, and each contributor owns the copyright on whatever they've created on Wikipedia, but has agreed to the licensing scheme by uploading it. The licensing terms exist only because the copyright exists, you can't have the one without the other. Once the copyright has run out, there's no longer anything to license, and the material falls into the public domain. (That will be interesting, 70 - 95 years from now, trying to unravel which words and punctuation date from when to determine which is p.d. and which is still copyrighted and licensed under CC.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, I agree with User:Beyond My Ken. So, I'll note, does Wikipedia:Copyrights: "The text of Wikipedia is copyrighted (automatically, under the Berne Convention) by Wikipedia editors and contributors and is formally licensed to the public under one or several liberal licenses." Much if not most of the content on Wikipedia is under copyright. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note that there is a new issue surfacing; material that makes up a summary on one article cannot be the same text as the text of another article? I surely hope not; it seems to me absurd that one WP article could be a copyvio of another. However,

WP:G12 cannot be and should not have been applied, as neither the original article nor the copied text was an "unambiguous" copyright violation. Anarchangel (talk

) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as DegenFarang does in fact adhere to the topic ban, I'd be happy to mentor him should he make occasional requests for a second opinion on my talk page. — madman 14:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Can someone please close the following RfC?[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

No need for this. Consensus has been determined to make the reason parameter mandatory. The request to the fully protected page to remove the warning has already been made. Please discuss before making unilateral requests for administrative closures. Administrative closure is not required.Curb Chain (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If consensus has been determined, then the RfC should be closed. Why is it still open? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If the RfC has reached a consensus, and it has run for at least 30 days, why not close it? What purpose is served by leaving it open any longer? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Curb Chain is the only one wanting to keep this open. Someone please close it so we can move forward. AIRcorn (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand Curb Chain's comment; no requests to require the warning have been fulfilled, and the last time the template was edited was this pair of edits by Rich Farmbrough to tidy the code. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to preface this with the understanding that I have no clue about what's really going on with Curb Chain (I'm not trying to accuse, here). That being said, it appears that he's attempting to obstruct the process here for as long as possible. He makes no secret about his opposition to this or related changes (I'm including the last couple of deletion nominations here, in "related changes"), which should be apparent to most by looking at his statements in either the current discussion or in the most recent tfd discussions. I don't think that this is really an issue at this point, and likely won't be an issue as long as the RFC actually is closed and an edit is made to the template after we figure out exactly what changes should be made. It bears some watching of course, but... in my (admittedly limited) interactions with Curb Chain, he seems to be someone that can be worked with after it's obvious what the consensus actually is. He simply wants to ensure that his viewpoint is heard, as far as I can tell. If someone could close the discussion (which, Aircorn has already provided some significant work towards accomplishing), then I'm all but certain that things could move along here without further administrative assistance (outside of someone fulfilling an edit request eventually, of course).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Y I closed the RfC.  Sandstein  15:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have a serious complaint about one of the editors: the user name is Srleffler which quite blatantly break the "Five Pillars of Wikipedia". Frankly, if abuse of this nature cannot be dealt with effectively the credibility of Wikipedia is in serious doubt.

I made an edit to the following page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation This page contains the following comment, which is not backed up by any citation and which is contradicted by many hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals:

"For low-frequency radiation (radio waves to visible light) most if not all effects are thought to be due to radiation power alone, acting through the effect of simple heating when the radiation is absorbed by the cell."

I corrected this mistake and added references to peer-reviewed research. Mr Srleffler, who - according to his profile - has no training or expertise at all in this field - deleted my corrections. None of his explanations makes any sense: it is clear that he has not read or even accessed any of the research papers (nor would he have the expertise to understand them if he did). Either he works for a telecommunications company and has a vested interest in this research being suppressed or else he deleted my comments out of spite.

Biological effects of Electromagnetic radiation

Srleffler's comments:

Hi. I undid your changes to Electromagnetic radiation. The changes you made seem likely to be controversial. Wikipedia requires that information can be backed up by a citation to a "reliable source". It does not appear to me that the BioInitiative Report website qualifies as such, so I have reverted the article to its former state.--Srleffler (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

[The Biointiative Report I refer to is a collection of reviews of the literature. I have no idea why he thinks that this is not a "reliable source".]

I have a PhD in biophysics from the University of Cambridge and have a fairly detailed understanding of the literature. Whoever wrote the original text had apparently not read a single one of the many hundreds of papers covering the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.

You have no relevant background in this field, so it is not clear why you believe that you are in a position to judge research which you have not read and which is, in any case, far outside your field of expertise or training. I suggest that a little humility might be appropriate here.

In any case, since you have destroyed my previous comments I have re-written them in more detail: they now include references to specific research.

This time, please have the professional integrity to actually check these before passing judgment on them. You will notice that my analysis, unlike most of the rest of the page, is based on peer-reviewed research. In particular, the original comment that the health effects of EMF are somehow caused by "heating" - which I have removed - was a personal opinion which was not backed up by any citation and which was contradicted by the last twenty years of research in this field.

I will be more than happy to take this matter to arbitration if necessary. It is extraordinarily important for people to be aware of the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation. I strongly believe that Wikipedia - which I use constantly - should be a source of reliable, accurate information, rather than simply reflect the prejudices of a few editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 April 2012‎

Srleffler's comments:

Please see Electromagnetic radiation and health where the material you are adding would belong rather than on the general article. I've removed your addition as it was supported by two primary research articles and a rather dated 1979 article, please carefully read WP:RS. Vsmith (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

[He has removed my comments because they were supported by peer-reviewed research - he removed my previous one because it was supported by a review of the literature. Something is wrong here.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TopGarbageCollector (talk • contribs) 15:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, not a cause for administrative action. You've already posted at

WP:DR: please confine the discussion to that, more appropriate venue, and please avoid attacks on other editors. Acroterion (talk)

15:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(

WP:DR thread on this topic, which is the proper way to draw other editors into the discussion. It's quite possible the original content is problematic (either a mis-analysis or simply not up-to-date with more recent sources), but likewise it's possible that a website that collects reviews might have its own agenda or somehow else have selection bias in its content. All of those issues are easily in the scope of normal dispute resolution discussion processes rather than trying to trump all with administrative intervention yet. Fact is, your changes were controversial even if they wind up being correct after others have had a chance to hear more about it, and the previous content is cited even if you have additional information or evidence on the topic. DMacks (talk

) 15:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)