Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/13

Image:Finiteexample1.jpeg

 * Please restore. This file was used at Boundary Value Problems/Numerical Methods. Deletion reason was no license information. Very common with earlier Wikiversity work. The user created the image, for use in the resource, and simply uploaded it, using it immediately, but then, much later, is gone when the licensing question was asked. It is possible that fair use can be asserted, but I can't judge if this could be appropriate without seeing the image. As well, the image might be recreated in a way that would not be a problem. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅: Tagged with No License as of today, giving seven days for an evaluation and determination of fair use. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. There was extensive discussion of related issues at Requests_for_Deletion/Archives/12, in a number of nominations.
 * First of all, there is a rebuttable presumption that all files uploaded are uploaded by one having the right to upload the file, the site license requires that.
 * When this file was uploaded, May 22, 2008, the user, apparently a professor of mathematics (I found a page with a resume, and a defective deletion tag on it, see ), was new, and working intensively on Boundary Value Problems. The user was not notified of the missing license until August 2, 2009, and the file was actually deleted on March 21, 2010. However, the user almost entirely stopped contributing to Wikiversity on April 28, 2009. It is not clear that he noticed or knew what to do about the notice, and there was no continued discussion. He did edit after that, including editing his talk page, requesting deletion of his schedule (which was done). He does not have email enabled.
 * The problem is that we don't know the copyright owner, except that it is almost certain to be him. This would have been a Mathlab output, simply a plot of what he had input. What would be unique would be the specific code and variables he input. It was his work, done for the resource, on the spot.
 * Now, suppose I find such an image on Wikiversity. It's subject to the Wikiversity site license, generally. Can I use that image, asserting Fair Use? There is no question about the legality of this, I can do it for educational purpose. To protect for-profit re-users, a Fair Use tag must be placed, so that such users can readily identify such files.
 * It will be argued that this file can be replaced. Indeed it could. However, that would require resources that I don't have. Someone would have to have the tools and do the work. That "it could be replaced" is theoretically possible but may be practically impossible, and if there is a thousand images like this, each one requiring as much as hours of work, where will that labor come from.
 * Is the file necessary for the educational resource? That would take an expert opinion! The author, probably an expert, considered it important enough to do the work.
 * So, following that, and assuming good faith, I am going to assert that the owner of the file is the user. I will, however, use a fair use rationale, so that re-users are on notice that there is a potential problem. It is important to realize that there is zero legal problem for the WMF or for me if this file continues to be used. We *could* claim that by uploading the file, the user did consent to free re-use. I don't think that is necessary. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, the instructions for users on how to supply copyright information suck. I really get why many don't get it right. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's done. Please consider if this solution, or something like it, could be a generic solution to the problems of many old images with no license information. If they are used in mainspace, the issue will become if the usage is educational. If it is, and even if we do not know the copyright owner *for sure*, it is so likely that the user, with files like this, owns the copyright or has permission, and has given permission by uploading it, that we can assume this, but claim Fair Use in case that there is an error. The image can be improved, by the way, it's got a lot of empty space at the top, needs to be cropped. If it's allegedly easy to find another image, fine. Let the re-user of the material supply the labor to replace it. They can delete the image from their copy just as easily as we can, and the resulting page would be the same. Meanwhile we get to use the image! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What would we need to do to get the Upload Wizard added / turned on?  Wikipedia is using it now, but we didn't get the same update here, or at least not as far as I know how to look for it yet.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The really weird thing is that copyright applies quite the same to text as to images. Basically, the upload and edit windows state that the user agrees to release the material, but do not state that the user has the right to release. If we really need to know that, we'd need to know it for text as well as for images. I'm sure the issues are complex, legally, but, in fact, the legal situation for the WMF wikis is *easier* than for, say, YouTube, because the WMF is nonprofit, it's an additional protection. The standing WMF policy, as it has been interpreted, requires *today's users* to go to substantial effort to replace a file, or it appears to require that the file be deleted, thus potentially damaging content, whereas actually taking the images out is easy-peasy, if they have been tagged as Fair Use. And then the re-user does the work, but only if it's needed. If we can accept this Fair Use rationale, then we are basically done. Otherwise we need to keep handling file deletions and the resulting damage.


 * The WV:EDP deprecates educational purpose, requiring it be strong, in favor of avoiding fair use work. That requires a judgment of the strength of educational purpose, which is then highly sensitive to educational point of view. Most of us long-term active on Wikiversity have a sense of community connection and process as important to education. I.e, the students matter. But the overall WMF habit is to consider the content as the goal. How the content is created and what that process does to the users doesn't matter! Hence user images may be tolerated, on User pages, but are not considered to have an "educational purpose." It's a major difference in educational philosophy. I've been involved with Alternative Education Resource Organization, and the like. I was at their Conference in New York a couple of years ago, when I was very active and excited about Wikiversity, and so were many of them. And then Stuff Happened that made me think, for a while, that this still wasn't a safe place to bring people. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I see this as a user interface problem. If files must be tagged in order to be uploaded, then the only problem would be files that are improperly tagged.  The problem we have now is that files can be uploaded without being tagged, and if no one follows up immediately, there's no way to get a proper tag later.  What I would like to do is a combination of implementing the Upload Wizard to improve the user interface, and add an abuse filter that blocks creating files that are not tagged.  Then the user has a good interface, and we only have to follow up on complaints of violations rather than a lack of information.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

School:Revelation_Design
Appears somewhat incoherent and whatever it is it certainly has no educational resources. The founding member has been inactive since 2007. Since then there has been little activity of note as you can see here.http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=School:Revelation_Design&action=history Frankly it is just clutter on the front page. Anyways do what you think is best. 206.174.15.122 (discuss) 09:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I was the IP who originally posted this. I accidentally posted it at the bottom of the page instead of here. Waiting for any other opinions.


 * Move to main space -> Revelation design. The content describes an idea for an educational project which could be of interest to others, but which doesn't seem to me to be sufficiently active or developed to constitute a school. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 23:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to be inappropriately named, as there isn't even a Wikipedia topic on revelation design. There are suggestions on the School_talk:Revelation_Design page to merge it with one of three other schools.  Another option, based on the page content, would be to move it to main space under Natural language expression, which appears to be the project's goal.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Move per Jtneill. This is a content decision, and can be handled without deletion. The page would not be deleted, because of the history, it would be redirected to the new location. It would be removed from the School category. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is incoherent because the subject is unfocused. It is beyond saving.Dejvid (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Move per Jtneill. Here's a quote using the term: "Gradual Revelation Design begins by offering the student a "help" which may jog his memory just enough to give meaning." by Ann L. Whiskeyman, "Development of IVD materials using non-native language mediation", CALICO Journal 8(1), 75-86, url=http://journals.sfu.ca/CALICO/index.php/calico/article/view/396, doi=10.11139/cj.8.1.75-86. The CALICO Journal where this appears is The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have actually moved the page, to User:Len Raymond/Revelation Design and have removed the school category from it. If the user who founded it comes back, he can still find his page, and perhaps he will work on it then, or perhaps another will at some point. Reviewing the page, this was never a school. I don't think there is enough there to be a mainspace page, though we have worse. Interesting what Marshall found, but I suspect that this is an accidental coincidence of words, the article appears to be using "revelation design" differently. On the other hand, if someone is willing to take responsibility for the condition and development of the page, I would not be opposed. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

[ C:CSD]
Per Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons interwiki prefix, this redirect needs to be deleted in order to make way for the developers to configure the new C-colon prefix to point to Wikimedia Commons. In effect, changing the prefix will cause this page to be "deleted"; actually it is much more difficult to retrieve than if it were deleted since it is not only hidden from the public but also from administrators as well, and would only be retrieved through developer intervention. So this is the same as debating the "deletion" of this redirect at a local level. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 08:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * RFD not necessary. Resource is an unused redirect qualifying for speedy deletion.  Deleted.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing this. The filer is pointed to the guideline for this page (at the top) and to Deletions, criterion 10. As Dave noted, this was an unused redirect. Whenever speedy deletion is appropriate, RFD should not be filed unless a deletion tag is removed. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh I see now, the speedy deletion result of this redirect is a direct consequence of the deletion request immediately above. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 04:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Files uploaded by Alauc
Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further. 


 * File:Dijalektička teorija i praksa društva.pdf
 * File:Drvo razvitka.jpg
 * File:Metodologija.pdf

These are first of all written in another language, possibly Serbo-Croatian, so they should be relocated to another language Wikiversity domain like sr.wikiversity.org or to the multilingual Wikiversity hub if one does not exist. Second problem is that a little digging has uncovered that the two PDF documents have been licensed for "Attribution Noncommercial" use, and furthermore they've been uploaded to the Internet in February 2009 but the current versions on Wikiversity were uploaded May 2009. Barring explicit permission from the copyright holder to release these under the given licenses, these need to be deleted. Specifically, there is no evidence linking the account Alauc to the actual author, Ante Lauc, which would need to be referred to one of Wikimedia's OTRS queues. For all I know, that could just be a colleague of the author posting on his behalf. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 20:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum to the above rationale: File:Dijalektička teorija i praksa društva.pdf was coauthored by Rudolf Legradić and therefore would also require his explicit written permission as well as Ante Lauc's permission added to the OTRS queue. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 07:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I noted Legradić as co-author below. I also noted he died in 1989. It's looking like that work was released into the public domain when first published. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 11:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - The files are not in English and not in use here. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dave, that's what I thought initially; in fact, my first thought was, "we don't need a deletion discussion for this, this could be speedied." Then I looked more carefully, and, in fact I spent almost a day looking into this.
 * I was surprised to find in Deletions, "not in English" is not a reason for speedy deletion. I'd thought so and had speedy deleted a fair number of resources not in English! But the page actually has something quite different, like a breath of fresh air:
 * In a foreign language: Translate to English, move to target language Wikiversity, or move to Beta Wikiversity if there is no Wikiversity in that language. And that is exactly what we should do. *If* the resource (or files) are moved to another Wikiversity, then we may or may not delete. Proposed deletion could then be appropriate. In any case, these resources are now being used, so the usage issue is dead.
 * And because they are now in use, they can be tagged as Fair Use. I believe that would close the discussion?  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. It is difficult to justify hosting an "entire work" under Fair Use. A reduced resolution scan of the drawing, yes, that could work, but ... the two books, no. Rather, each book is a separate issue, they are different. We will get to that. It is actually unnecessary, my opinion. I don't know if this would stand at Commons -- and I've attempted to research it there, by the way -- but we do not have to follow Commons policy, where there is an entire community of copyright experts. We only need to know and apply enough to keep Wikiversity out of trouble. We do not have to be perfect. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Move to close quickly under Fair Use per Dave Braunschweig before this page gets any longer. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 00:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That would leave a mess for the future. I thank TCNSV for raising the issues here, and it's time to resolve them, as far as we can with these examples. Each of the files is different, which is why I opened three subtopics. If the files are Fair Use, they will need a Fair Use rationale. I'm not going to claim Fair Use for any of the files, because the entire work is hosted with the two books, and the image is hi-res. If someone else claims Fair Use, I'll step out of the way for now. But I'd prefer to establish that the pages are Public Domain, having been released that way. (Yes, the Scribd pages are for non-commercial use; so fall-back is to place a Non-free rationale on the pages, which is different from Fair Use.)
 * As to the length of this page, this is Wikiversity, not Wikipedia or Commons, where length may matter. On Wikipedia, there could be a train wreck of a discussion, incoherent, with opinions all over the map, and few, if any, participants actually doing serious research. Or it might be speedy-closed based on a superficial appearance, as could have happened here because of the language issue. I spent a full day on this issue. There is value to derive. If we want "quick," we don't come to RFD. (I've been making this point for years.) As could have been done with the previous page nominated, use delete or Proposed deletion. And accept the result (i.e., deletion or any objecting registered user yanks the tag), or come here and understand that we deal with depth in Wikiversity, this is an academic environment. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep -- for a time.  Yes, on the face, these documents are not in English and would not normally be usable on Wikiversity, even without license issues. However, I'll note the following:
 * Dijalektička ...  is a 485 page document, scanned from a 1977 book by Dr Rudolf Legradić and Dr Ante Lauc. The uploader made this comment: (google trans/Serbian:)
 * Prof. R. Legradic and I wrote this book in 1977. Thousands of students have been taught and inspired by the results of our research. In the introduction to the book I explain the similarities and differences between us. My part I call designing social development not knowing that time (1977) theory of self-organization, autopoiesis, etc.. This book is modern, and eventually I came to the post-modern paradigm. I did not believe in God, he prayed, but through this book (at least in my area) God is no longer speaking later works. Why?
 * Given this, the user Alauc is certainly claiming to be Ante Lauc.
 * The book title means "Dialectical theory and practice of society"
 * Dr Rudolf Legradić was a professor of commercial Law, retired in 1971, and died in 1989.
 * Ante Lauc is professor of economics at Osijek University, Osijek, Croatia.
 * The upload specifically claims ownership of the copyright, and explicitly releases it to the public domain.
 * I was able to download the book pdf from www.academia.edu (per the link given). The pdf itself appears to have no reservation of rights in it. What is referred to in the nomination is likely the site license for academia.edu. That is, files hosted by them are at least available with the NC restriction. If these files were uploaded by the copyright owner, as claimed in the upload, then that full release to the public domain, regardless of date, would supersede all restricted licenses.
 * Metodologija is an even longer book with Ante Lauc as sole author. The book has an explicit permission to reproduce: (google trans/Serbian) This book is allowed to reproduce and multiply in any written, printed or electronic form without modification.
 * Drvo razvitka is apparently a drawing by Ante Lauc and signed by him.
 * So we have explicit permission. The claim that there is no evidence linking Alauc with Ante Lauc is obviously incorrect, there are multiple evidences. Sure, this might be an imposter, but why these three pages? What would be gained? The pages have clearly been released under a somewhat more restrictive license elsewhere, but the default presumption here is that Alauc is Ante Lauc. The user has email enabled. He was never welcomed. There is no sign that the uploads were actually noticed. I also have his email from searching. He's old, so there is always the issue of being accessible, but it could be done.
 * So the question then, before standing on our heads with OTRS, if that's necessary -- I'm not sure why it is -- is do we keep this, given the language problem? The nominator correctly suggests this be transferred to sr.wikiversity (if it existed, which apparently it does not) or Beta (which does have sr work). However, this could also have a use here.
 * It would be interesting to translate the book, and study the contents. There is some material from Ante Lauc in English. His work might be worth studying. Now, from what I could find, Professor Lauc has nowhere else released this book (and the other two files) explicitly into the public domain (except that Metodologija has an explicit permission to reproduce, but not to alter). So if we delete it here, the availability of the work might be damaged. If it moves to Beta/sr, that would be excellent. So we should contact them, and the file should be kept pending.
 * Then, if we keep it -- or they keep it -- there is the question of OTRS which is bothering me. Our upload process implies that the copyright owner may tag the page with Template:PD-self. The uploader apparently, then, believed that he was done. Nobody appears to have raised the issue. So, four years later, someone challenges the identity of the uploader.
 * Does OTRS have magic pixie dust? How do they know what the real email address of the author is? We might still be able to verify it, but .... isn't this a tad .... obsessive? We aren't Commons. Our business is not guaranteed bulletproof free content.
 * Really, this material belongs on Commons and then anyone could use it, as the uploader intended. But would they just delete it, if Ante Lauc doesn't respond to email? Wikisource?
 * As to usage, I don't see that anyone noticed the upload. Nobody is going to use it if they don't know it exists. I googled one of the books. Google does not show the book as existing here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have now organized a resource that uses these files. I will email Dr. Lauc and see if communication with him is possible. There is Autopoiesis/Economics and there are two translation projects set up under Topic:Serbo-Croatian. (Translation is a fantastic way to learn a language, I taught myself Sanskrit -- and Buddhism -- by translating the Heart Sutra and by submitting it for review by Edward Conze). --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have notified Alauc, on-wiki and by email, of this deletion discussion and have tagged the files with Template:dr. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We have seen previous mass nominations of work added by a user, when, in fact, each resource might have different characteristics and issues. Having a single discussion per page is the norm, and Template:dr assumes that in the link it generates. While sometimes it is appropriate to discuss a large issue in this way, for a small number of files like this, the discussion should unique for each file. I am proposing to use this section only for continued discussion of the common issue (such as pages being in Serbo-Croatian, or the identity of the uploader), and am creating sections below for each file, so that the dr template doesn't come up empty. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Dijalektička teorija i praksa društva.pdf

 * see for nomination.
 * Book, 485 pages, by Rudolf Legradić and Ante Lauc, published by the University of Osijek, 1977.
 * Book appears to contain no notice of copyright or restriction of rights. Osijek was in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at the time, so Yugoslav copyright law would have applied.
 * In the United States at that time, publication without notice would have irrevocably released the work into the public domain. (Replace this with definitive information on Yugoslav law as it was then.)
 * The book was uploaded to Scribd, "Published by: Ante Lauc on Apr 14, 2009 Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial"
 * The book was uploaded to Wikiversity by Alauc, May 1, 2009, with Template:PD-self.
 * The upload comment was (google trans):
 * "Prof. R. Legradic and I wrote this book in 1977. Thousands of students have been taught and inspired by the results of our research. In the introduction to the book I explain the similarities and differences between us. My part I call designing social development not knowing that time (1977) theory of self-organization, autopoiesis, etc.. This book is modern, and eventually I came to the post-modern paradigm. I did not believe in God, he prayed, but through this book (at least in my area) God is no longer speaking later works. Why?"
 * Rudolf Legradić died in 1989.

[please add any verifiable facts with sources, in this section above this comment]

Discussion
Keep. Now used in educational resources, one for the study of Lauc's work, the other as a translation project; uploader claims to be co-author, from username and from the comment added. I suspect that in Yugoslavia, the university was a government activity, and Yugoslav law made all such work public domain, hence no reservation of rights. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Drvo razvitka.jpg

 * see for nomination.
 * Drawing, by Ante Lauc (named in the drawing0
 * The drawing was uploaded to Wikiversity by Alauc, May 1, 2009, with Template:PD-self.
 * The upload comment was (google trans):
 * The poster is on the development equation, where the variance of profitability explains the moral, intellectual, social, physical and financial capital, and the environment. On the graph of profits suggests the Copernican revolution by investing in people and only then in physical capital. Now, the process goes the other way around. ABCD is the graph suggests a better self-organization, because while c> b nation's limb, and if b> c people will come in a. In the tree (of life) development starts from 6 Root (the book Methodology ..) 5 criteria, through continuing education and teamwork in 4 types of development. Points to God as the top down and Science - bottom up approach, and it is possible to connect autopoietic approach, where each element associated with the second lift motivational (Plutchik, Maslow, etc.), cognitive (Piaget, etc.), social (G. Homans, P. Berger, etc..), technical (Shingo, etc.). process towards an optimal allocation of human and physical resources and regulated by autopoietcno right (N. Luhmann, etc.)."
 * The drawing was uploaded to Scribd, "Published by: Ante Lauc on May 04, 2009 Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial"
 * An English version of the poster is at http://www.scribd.com/doc/94371565/Global-Autopoietic-University-PDF, "Published by: Ante Lauc on May 22, 2012 Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial."

[please add any verifiable facts with sources, in this section above this comment]

Discussion
Keep. Now used in educational resource for the study of Lauc's work. Other uploads by Alauc here claim to be Ante Lauc, and there is no reason to doubt this. The publication here predates the Sribd publication. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Metodologija.pdf

 * see.
 * Book, 525 pages, by Ante Lauc, published by the University of Osijek, Faculty of Law, 2000.
 * Publication contains permission to reproduce (pdf page 2, google trans.):
 * "This book is allowed to reproduce and multiply in any written, printed or electronic form without modification."


 * The book contains what may be a restriction:
 * "Changes are subject to the approval by welcome, especially if the reader has to say, and thus become a co-author for the next edition."


 * The book was uploaded to Scribd, "Published by: Ante Lauc on Feb 14, 2009 Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial"
 * The book was uploaded to Wikiversity by Alauc, May 1, 2009, with Template:PD-self.
 * The upload comment was (google trans):
 * Linking the achievements of biology, philosophy, psychology, technology, economics, and law derives strategy development of one system (for me it is the Republic of Croatia, with smaller changes worth, in my opinion for any Berths country, region) on the basis of autopoiesis and self-organization. Readers suggest you start from the conclusion (of Hegel, I learned to go from introduction and that's enough), go to the afterword, introduction and psychology, and then to the other chapters."

[please add any verifiable facts with sources, in this section above this comment]

Discussion
Keep. Now used in educational resources, one for the study of Lauc's work, the other as a translation project.; uploader claims to be author, from username and from the comment added. Release of rights is clear, this work is now public domain without restriction due to upload here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Discussions are archived for review purposes. Please start a new discussion to discuss the topic further.

Files uploaded by Drjayztekradio

 * File:Jaybiowiki.jpg
 * File:Schooldivdeptstructure2.jpg
 * File:Orangehair.jpg
 * File:Orangehairfixed.jpg
 * File:Lnewsbig.jpg
 * File:100 0969sml.jpg
 * File:100 9317sml.jpg

These are unused files that are potentially violating the copyright of the purported source "Zephyr Designs", unless information from them can be sent to Wikimedia's OTRS queues. At the time of this nomination, they are serving little to no intrinsic educational value to Wikiversity's mission, and on top of that the uploader in question has had a history of creating potential copyright violations as his only seeming purpose here on Wikiversity, as evidenced by his only contributions being uploads speedily deleted by the custodians of an earlier time for being copyvios. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 07:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. (All but one file, as unused with no educational purpose) Files should be nominated in named sections or subsections here, with Template:dr placed on them, linking to the section. It is possible that each file is distinct. Nominations like Files uploaded by USERNAME are generally inappropriate, alone. Rather, if there is a clear reason for deletion of the files, they should first be tagged with Template:delete, or if there is possible educational use, with Template:Proposed deletion. Only if disagreement appears should deletion nominations come here.
 * A custodian can verify, but it appears that any usage of these files was likely User:Drjayztekradio, the user page, deleted "at user request." It is possible there were other deleted pages. (Would a custodian please check?) There is evidence that the user intended to create educational resources here (The school structure file) but it never happened, unless there were other pages, perhaps about web design? From internet search, including this page it is likely that the user was a principal in Zephyr Designs, and, as well, ZTEKnologies, so the issue was lack of adequate license information, and lack of response from user, not actual copyright violation. There was only one notice to the user, so other files were deleted without notice. We have been quite ragged in the past. I concur with deletion, though I personally saved one file, File:100 9317sml.jpg, and I intend to use it, thus:
 * Keep File:100 9317sml.jpg. I will claim Fair Use if needed, when placed. However, this file has, prima facie, been released under the GNU free documentation license, by the likely creator, DBA Zephyr Designs. It's low-res and could not impact commercial value. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Undelete files being discussed here. A custodian deleted all but one file, the school file was left. While files are being discussed here, they should remain undeleted, so that users can see them. Otherwise discussion becomes meaningless. (I was also able to use information in the files to track down the uploader, at least a little.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Category: Pending deletions
The Wikimedia Foundation has a licensing policy that requires all Wikimedia projects to host only free content, with project-specific exemptions. Wikiversity's policy on media content is described at Media, and licensing options available are described at License tags. As indicated by the template, files without license information may be deleted after seven days if proper notice has been given. It appears that this policy was strongly enforced until mid to late October 2012. Since that time, there has been limited or no enforcement.

After discovering the Category: Pending deletions and the long list of files it contains, I began researching the situation, as well as any other unlicensed files that had not yet been tagged. I then tagged all remaining unlicensed files. The combined total is currently 1,981 files. The files break down into three lists:
 * Resources with Files Pending Deletion
 * User Pages with Files Pending Deletion
 * Unused Files Pending Deletion

I am seeking consensus as to how the community would like these pending deletions to be processed. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Pinatubo1.jpg of Wikiversity:Unused Files Pending Deletion on user page Austin Huynh is a duplicate of File:Pinatubo4.png which has licensing information supplied. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:52, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ 1 down, 1,980 to go. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

All users who have uploaded files that are missing license information have now been notified that license information is required, and a list of the files that they uploaded that still need license information has been provided on their talk page. See User:MaintenanceBot for a sample notification. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Among the three lists are files that are part of the course EGM 4313 Intermediate Engineering Analysis, including unlinked files. I am putting the following license on each using a template:
 * ==Licensing==
 * Question: should I include the user who uploaded the file in the author line with Vu-Quoc? Although everything to produce the file is supplied by Quoc including Matlab which produces the actual file, an argument could be made that the student actually performed the execution of Matlab by inputting the appropriate equation(s). Opinions, please. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the student would be the author. I tell my students what experiments to perform, but they author their assignments.  Having the professor as the source seems reasonable.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Legendre Functions.jpg is linked to nothing in the above course. The functions used to create the plots may have been a test or a mistake. While it may have value for a resource on Legendre functions which I may create, unless finding the functions is easy, this file can be deleted. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the student would be the author. I tell my students what experiments to perform, but they author their assignments.  Having the professor as the source seems reasonable.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * File:Legendre Functions.jpg is linked to nothing in the above course. The functions used to create the plots may have been a test or a mistake. While it may have value for a resource on Legendre functions which I may create, unless finding the functions is easy, this file can be deleted. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been somewhat surprised by the lack of response on this. Of the users notified, just a few updated their files. Several deleted the notice and removed the tag from the file rather than adding information. Everyone else except User:Marshallsumter has ignored it and this discussion. I'm not sure how to interpret that beyond an incredible level of apathy regarding these files, but perhaps that's what got us here to begin with. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've now cleaned up all duplicate files from these categories. Where possible, the duplicate that was licensed or the duplicate that was in use was kept and the unused and/or unlicensed file was deleted. The total of remaining files is down to 1,911.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

All unused, unlicensed files have now been deleted. This leaves 1,510 files in use but currently without any license or copyright information. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A bot has now been written that can edit a list of files, remove the tag, and add a  for school project tag in its place.  This is in response to both a request from Professor Loc Vu-Quoc to preserve files in the University of Florida engineering courses and also MarshallSumter's desire to preserve this content.
 * The bot has been written to check for periods of high activity and adjust its own performance accordingly per API standards. It also tags the edits as bot edits, so they do not automatically appear in the Recent changes list, but can be easily searched for by modifying the Recent changes settings.
 * As this request has now been open for more than 30 days without any additional input, I will process the files that have been requested to be preserved as fair use, and then delete the remaining files per Licensing policy.

Unused Wikiversity files lacking a source
On Wikimedia Commons, it is standard practice to assert two or three required pieces of information required for Commons to continue hosting certain media files. The first is the obvious copyright tag or license, which can easily be fixed by choosing one of the standard CC-BY-SA, copyleft, GNU Free Documentation, MIT or other free license tags. Conforming with the general practice on Wikiversity, unless such images are used in an educational resource or setting, it's easy enough to fix that I am content with allowing at least a week for uploaders to respond to notices of their images being deleted and correcting the copyright license accordingly.

The second, and more problematic piece of information, is often the source of the image. This is necessary for reusers of such images to verify that the copyright information on the media file description is accurate. Barring obvious cases like the Mona Lisa, Commons requires even public domain works to specify a source for which others could verify the release of the image into public domain (specifically before 1923 which is the date works go into the public domain). Because the source information of media files is often harder to obtain than basic copyright information is, whether because the original website/domain moved or whatever, I would not object to extending the requirements for uploaders to assert a source from one week to one month. I am a little wary of tagging images without a source if they might be used in an educational context, for which a reasonable claim of fair use might be asserted. For reference, the list of unused files is at Special:UnusedFiles, it only requires human filtering of which ones are sourced and which ones are not. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

These files are currently unused and do not specify an appropriate source for us to be able to accurately assess their copyright statuses. Furthermore, the original uploader has given assent to the proposed deletions. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 07:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Mariatu.jpg
 * File:Ulla engel.JPG

User:Augusto_De_Luca
The page at User:Augusto_De_Luca was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Wim b as spam, based on the same page being created on 557 different wikis. The associated user account is now globally locked. I deleted the page based on this information, but User:Abd has requested an undelete. So, it now comes here for community consensus. There isn't anything about the page itself that I believe violates our policy, other than the likelihood that it was created by a bot. What does the community recommend for this page? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From here (sorted by date):

6 edits in 1 minute, after, 2 (on average) edit in 1 minute for 13 hours (from 6:53 on ace.wikipedia.org, to 19:39 on zh-min-nan.wiktionary.org) in a alphabetical order. The day after from ar.wikisource.org (08:18, 25 mar 2014) to vi.wikibooks.org (14:11, 25 mar 2014), project by proget, in alphabetical order. This isn't a bot in your opinion? --Wim b 23:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Those times are not edit times. Those are account attachment times. For example, see the en.wikiversity page, that's the subject of our discussion. This page was not edited at "17:03, 23 mar 2014," but at 4:41, 24 March 2014‎. The account attachment was at 16:03, 23 mar 2014. (Wim b obviously has his display settings in local time. He's in Italy.) I have not seen a study of the actual edit times, and it's difficult, because Wim b, with a few others, has deleted most of them. Only a steward or another global sysop could see this data at this point, and that's probably not worth the effort unless COI bot has collected it.
 * @Wim b, I just tested time to create user pages, see User:Abd/Augusto De Luca/Claims/Test. I was easily able to peak at about 10 user page creations per minute, with a predicted sustained rate of about 6 pages per minute. I did not use a script nor even any special browser tools, which could have been used to enhance speed. From what I've seen so far, Augusto only edited at about one page per minute, roughly. This was not a bot, no evidence has been shown here for that.
 * Below, the bot claim is repeated as if it were established fact. It's not. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 05:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As a professional software developer with 25 years of experience in dozens of programming languages, as an instructor who has seen the coding styles of hundreds of different developers, and as someone who has developed his own bot library for MediaWiki editing, it is my professional opinion that these activities are somewhere in between human and bot. There are parts of it that are clearly human, stopping on human boundaries, and taking clearly human breaks rather than randomized code breaks.  There are other parts that make no sense for a human to do that way and are much more likely to be code driven.  There is also evidence of a learning process involved, based on timings between initial edits and later activities.  The only way to associate some of this with bot activity would be to see the IP address of the edits and see what other edits have come from that IP.  While I'm sure someone else can do that, it's not necessary in order to determine deletion here.
 * I see this coming down to two points. 1) The activity is way beyond the norm of good faith editors on individual wikis.  There is no reason to believe any individual intends to contribute to 557 wikis in dozens of languages based on a single picture.  The motivation must be external.  It could be solicitation, name recognition, search engine optimization, whatever.  But it seems extremely unlikely that the edits are for the benefit of each local wiki.  And 2) The global user account is locked.  Unless and until that lock is lifted, the user cannot edit locally, so there is no particular benefit to having a local userpage for a user who has provided nothing to the local wiki but a link to a picture in Commons.
 * I personally would welcome the user to contribute to Wikiversity. In fact, I originally reviewed the page creation, considered the local solicitation issues, and then did welcome the user to contribute to Wikiversity.  But there is no benefit to the community for maintaining the page at this time, and no reason for us to fight for this user page harder than the user themselves is fighting.  If there is any evidence, email or otherwise, that the user wants this page kept, then I'd be willing to keep it.  Without the user's own support for his efforts, there is no reason for us to waste any more of our time on this.
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * For abd, in response to this --Wim b 23:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just for reference we are dealing with the userpage of a sockpuppet (the fifth or the sixth of someone hired to promote a photographer via Wiki*) which is now globally locked. Global lock means it cannot longer even login. --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Vituzzu, is there checkuser or other clear evidence of sock puppetry? Or are you simply assuming that a common interest = paid editing and sock puppetry? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - This account is a cross wiki spambot who has been creating userpages on various wikis to promote a picture of an artist. This userpage has also been created then deleted on various wikis with the reason: spam. It may just be an image, but it is a spambot promoting a picture of an artist. --Goldenburg111 23:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as someone who created my userpage manually on all 800-ish public Wikimedia wikis and knows how much time that takes, this was a bot. Obvious xwiki spam, with multiple accounts being used. And quite frankly, we should not be catering to the whims of one user who is known for wikilawyering on many wikis, and has been blocked many times, including here, for doing just that. --Rschen7754 23:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * : @Goldenburg111, a my photo in user page isn't spam if I'm a doctor, driver, plumber, ecc, if I'm photographer and I live whit money earned through those photos, an I linked 5-6 different photo in 557 wikis, this is spam for me, whether that I used or not a bot for create my user page. Practically this is a photographic album or a personal expo :P --Wim b 23:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And if I'm a professor, who makes my living by teaching and though my academic reputation, and if I link to my publications on my user page on Wikiversity, is this spam? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * cf. simple:wikt:User talk:Rschen7754: Rschen says his userpage is okay because it is related to Wikimedia. Using this logic (although a bit of a straw man), it could be argued that a userpage just listing academic credentials would be considered spam. PiRSquared17 (discuss • contribs) 04:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just going off w:en:WP:USERPAGE; yes, it's an enwiki guideline, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea. --Rschen7754 04:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity includes "learning by doing" as part of our mission, we are thus very different from the purely content-oriented projects. However, that WP guideline, I see:
 * Users believed to be in violation of these policies should first be advised on their talk page using when immediate action is not otherwise necessary.
 * Yes, I know why that wasn't followed. Once you conclude that the page is "spam," which is a judgment of motive, and in this case was obviously not based solely on the content, then you don't want to create a Talk page just to deal with a "spammer."
 * I don't see that this user page -- or any of the 557 user pages created -- violates the Wikipedia policy at all. Indeed self-disclosure on that level (one link to a photo on Commons, together with the user name) is encouraged. The real issue for the antispammers is that what is legitimate on one wiki was done on 557 in two days or so. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, Now that I see it. Yes, the user page has been deleted on many wikis, by Wim b and Vituzzu, for the most part, a global sysop and a steward making content decisions for local wikis. Some wikis delete user pages for users with no other contributions. We don't. We welcome the users, so I'm going ahead and doing that, now that I can see that the page is utterly harmless, and we would be honored if the artist/photographer would grace us with his presence. Those are fantastic photos. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Abd 2 edits at minute for 13h in 557 wikis? Yes, it's spam. Otherwise, can I put my website if I'm a web designer? IMHO no...--Wim b 00:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, on Wikiversity, you well may be able to do this. I'm not going to detail how, because all this comment is utterly off-topic, for more than one reason, starting with there being no link to any web site other than Commons. None of this relates to Wikiversity deletion policy, which is often different from policy at other wikis. We give users the greatest freedom on pages in their user space. The page under discussion is a user page, consisting entirely of a sized and centered image, File:Lia Rumma - Augusto De Luca photographer.jpg, with no caption (i.e, there is no display that the photo is by Augusto De Luca, you have to click on the file to see the file display that shows the filename.) The file is hosted on Commons. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, so: URL = spam, using a bot for created 557+ user's pages with your photos, orverlinking (also off-topic, edited by Ferdinando Castaldo, monotematic user whit user page identical at Augusto, a test before bigger spam?) and create a biography in NS:0 in much wikis using a babelfish and a sockpuppet (like Ferdinando Castaldo or Elvira Pisanti, another monotematic user with identical user's page) ≠ spam... Sure?!--Wim b 04:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I read the above, any my first impression was "What? What about "orverlinking," what's that? He meant overlinking, and the Contributions link he provided doesn't show anything related to that. What does is the en.wiki contributions display, . Apparently Wm b thinks this helps his case. In fact, the opposite. See . On that page, the norm is that the photographer credit is linked to an article on the photographer, and if there is no article on the photographer, the photo is removed from the page. That link to the photographer article was present in the original version of the page, created by a general editor, certainly not an SPA.


 * It's obvious what Vituzzu did. He looked at "what links here" from Augusto De Luca, and, like a bot, removed those link brackets, with no regard for actual usage or who had added them or any of that, but he made the motive of the editor the issue, instead of the content. "overlinking of Augusto De Luca for promotional purposes." Classic Wikipedia error. Cited here as if it proves something for us. What it shows, and why I point this out, is the thinking. Bad Motive asserted to claim Bad Page. No, we look at the page. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * My, my. An Augusto photo was added to the Wikipedia article on Miksang, by a user who is apparently an Augusto SPA ("fan"), May 1, 2013. It was removed yesterday by the steward Vituzzu, who has commented above. Whether or not the photo is relevant to the article or not is a complex judgment best made by someone familiar with the topic, but this was the photo: File:Augusto De Luca - foto 4.jpg. An IP who appears to have an interest in Miksang specifically did not remove the photo. It does seem relevant to me. I become more and more interested in this photographer. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete while it's true that the only seeming violation of the page is the method by which it was created (automated script), the reality is much more different than that. On the surface this doesn't look like anything but a harmless picture of a photograph, but smart spammers are always looking for more subtle ways to subvert wiki processes by making their pages look more innocuous than the amateurs do. For example, SEO attacks usually consist of just a few innocuous keywords on a userpage that is frequently overlooked by some of the custodians here, for the simple fact that unlike regular spam it contains no outbound external links. Spam is spam, regardless of what form it takes, and keeping this userpage is simply rewarding spammers for appearing more clandestine than the usual blatant ones. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Really dumb "spammers," if they are spammers at all, are called "smart" by some. If the goal was to create a background of legitimacy with these user pages, exactly how would that have been used? On every Commons page, there is a list of usages. These user pages would fill up the Commons page with instances, but all of them would stand out as user pages of the photographer. If that account tries to add the photos from articles, the conflict of interest would be immediately apparent. This shows no resemblance to "SEO attacks," other than the blatant mass creation of pages. Incompetent SEO, this would be. I do not know who is behind the User:Augusto De Luca account, we do not actually know if this is the photographer. Wouldn't this be a great way to harass him and his supporters? If the edits were by open proxy, this explanation could even be probable.
 * And none of this is relevant to Wikiversity deletion policy. Who or what is harmed if we allow this page? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your pride, I assume.
 * Btw on it.wiki I'm not a steward, just a long-standing sysop and 'crat.--Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 18:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, your pride. Read the question again. Yes, I'm very aware of your user rights. As a steward, working hard to stop global spammers and vandals (what you do is mind-boggling, tedious work), you develop an idea that what they create is Bad. That's what your content edits -- which did not involve use of tools -- show. The problem arises when what may be just fans of something, in this case a very fine photographer, look like spammers to you. I've seen it happen many times, over the years. The tools used for combating spam, which is, by definition, indiscriminate, like a sledgehammer, are used for content control. And that goes way too far. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Smarter spammers play others for fools. And this time I think they've got a smart one. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 19:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * very fine photographer or not, here the problem is the modus operandi used for showing his photos and biography....--Wim b 19:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * and : Please refrain from insulting users or making personal attacks. --Goldenburg111 19:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Goldenburg111: I don't think I've made a personal attack; I'm just describing what "smarter" spammers do. I've not commented on the other users in this discussion, but I think we have 4 supports for deletion, 1 opposed and 1 neutral (Dave) standing as referee; that's consensus for deletion. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * but also please refrain from making pointless reproaches, we are dealing with spammer. --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You are doing a magnificent job insulting cross wiki users. --Goldenburg111 18:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Vituzzu's comment about "pride" may have been personal, but so would my response be, then. TeleCom's mention of others being "played for fools" borders on personal. Neither of these warranted mention, my opinion. Rschen7754's comment, on the other hand, I see as conduct unbecoming of a steward, I was surprised by that. Totally irrelevant. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be honest with you here, initially I too had questioned the global lock on Augusto De Luca because I believed it was harmless to let userpages alone, even if it was spread out over multiple wikis. However, after some private discussion, I became concerned that the intent of the operator behind the account (self-promotional behavior, slightly allowed in regards to advertising adminship on other wikis) and the method of operation (unauthorized script for fast editing on multiple wikis, clearly disallowed by global bot policy) was not in the spirit of the Wikimedia project. I've never made mention of "others being played for fools", simply what I felt a necessary comment about the modus operandi of such spammers. And the SEO concern was completely relevant; a few strings of text is enough for SEO. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Key here: private discussion. It became quickly obvious from my study -- this is taking days of work -- that there was private discussion, because there was rapid effort from several users to handle the situation. Contrary to what exists of global policy, there was no public discussion, so far, about the global lock of five accounts -- effectively global bans -- not just the one that created the 557 pages. The people who would be most aware of the behavior of Augusto De Luca would be those who work on antispam, a relative small group of mostly non-content creators who help with that effort. RFD here is normally fairly obscure, but everyone who acted globally in this affair has commented here (AFAIK, so far). So a closer may need to consider some comments in this RfD as if possibly coordinated and factional. The users involved in the global deletion effort are: global sysop Wim b, stewards Vituzzu and Rschen7754, and user TeleComNasSprVen.
 * The global bot policy does not prohibit what was seen. This may well not have been a "bot." Indeed, it's unlikely. See User:Abd/Augusto De Luca/Claims. Account creation time was confused, above, with edit time. If this was a bot, it was throttled back to about one edit per minute. From the policy, it appears that bots editing with not more than one edit per minute may not need to be approved.
 * SEO, Search Engine Optimization, is not against policy. Certain things that some SEO services do are very much against policy. This should all be moot here. We are not the anti-SEO police. We care about Wikiversity content, and Wikiversity users, and educational process. Photography as art/Augusto De Luca will enhance hits for "Augusto De Luca." If I create an account with my real name, and place some content on the user page, it will enhance Google results for that real name. So? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy close may be proposed, but no policy-based arguments have been provided for it, nor even for regular deletion, and we have an inpouring of comments from two stewards and a global sysop -- I've never seen this kind of concentration before --, plus TeleCom himself is a cross wiki user, explicitly not here to build content.. Those supporting deletion, so far -- Goldenburg excepted -- are the cross-wiki users who developed the story of "bot" and "paid editing," and who have been acting to delete all those user pages WMF-wide. Almost everywhere that speedy deletion tags were used, they are either still standing or have been removed by local users. In one case, a speedy deletion tag was removed, but the page was deleted anyway by a steward. (My study of this is still in a very early stage.) So far, every deletion I've seen has been done by Wim b or by a steward, on wikis where that's allowed, yet there is no meta discussion, AFAIK. From long experience, I'm not surprised. Dave was totally correct to bring this discussion here, and I'm standing for Wikiversity content to be decided by Wikiversitans, not the federal police, nor even the campus cops, but by our "scholars," those here to teach and learn. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * feel free to say it's a fan rather than a hired SEO, feel free to say SEO is fine, feel free to deal with a lots of crappy non-relevant stuffs ("federal police" is what in communication is called "propaganda") but that won't change the simple fact you've made a personal quarrel out of a simple clean-up. --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, for now. I agree with Abd and Dave Braunschweig. It's a photo by a photographer referenced back to the studio/art gallery "Lia Rumma", according to Google Advanced Search. The photographer opened an account and a user page. Perhaps there will be an art course. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 06:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if we can expect that, but we can try. Do see Photography_as_art/Augusto_De_Luca. The user is globally locked, but eventually that might be overturned, and I'll be making attempts to contact him. The user is not globally banned, just locked (there can be no ban without discussion, and no global ban without a global discussion); there has been no discussion of the locks, and very little discussion of the user page deletions, this is the only one that I've seen, so far, other than some questions (see reference to one above), and quite a few sysops have removed deletion tags. See User:Abd/Augusto De Luca, where I'm documenting what actually happened here. That's going to take time, there were 557 user pages created, 1 per wiki! --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * a SEO teaching and writing stuffs on 557 wikis? That people have been teaching anything than how to spam for almost three years... --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete = cross-wiki-spammer per https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/Augusto_De_Luca. Blocked locally on nine (9) other wiki sites before being finally globally locked. These include Wikimedia Commons, Polish Wikipedia, French Wikisource, Italian Wikiversity, Italian Wikibooks, Italian Wiktionary, Indonesian Wikipedia, English Wiktionary, and Russian Wikipedia. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Besides being irrelevant, this is highly misleading. See User:Abd/Augusto De Luca/Claims. I assume good faith, that Cirt has merely fallen victim to a little shallow research and some assumptions. Of the "nine," only five preceded the global lock, and three of those were by the same global sysop as may have started this whole response. So 44% completely wrong, and another 33% misleading (i.e., not simply local). And as to the other two, there is a statement here about off-wiki communication. For all we know, the other two sysops were in on that (and there is another possibility, see the study page). It's a mess, folks. I suggest keeping our eye on the ball. This is not the page to debate global locks and the propriety of same, nor the activity of users on other wikis. It is a page to decide page deletion, here, and we make those decisions independently of editor behavior elsewhere, that's a firmly established Wikiversity tradition. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Related discussion at q:Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/User:Augusto De Luca. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's my fault. I removed the speedy tag. I've actually considered going global and doing that -- anyone could, in theory --, but I'm a WQ user and happened to see that page as part of my research. Most of the pages I've seen are on non-English-speaking wikis, and I do hesitate to act there. On the other hand, the global antispammers aren't shy about that, placing the tags, and I might be saving a sysop some time. So ... I haven't decided. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Abd: referred to this: i don't talk with you, is unuseful do it because you're in my opinion isn't in good faith and have demonstrated through dossier & CO. You have edit 10 pages for minute, do it for 13h at day, in alphabetical, order project by project. The project is your, if you would keep a spam only for spite, good...--Wim b 18:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is sad. I'm afraid that Wim b did not look at the study, User:Abd/Augusto De Luca/Claims/Test, where I show how I did it. I could do it in whatever order the source page I was working from was in. I'll eventually figure that out. It's trivial to do, though. 10 edits per minute was the peak rate, once a set of 10 pages was ready to go. With setup, 6 pages per minute could easily be sustained for the 90 minutes it would take to create all 557 user pages. What was the actual rate? Wim could tell us, because he can see all the deleted pages, but instead what he told us was completely wrong. It is looking like the actual rate, though, was about 1 page per minute. Which could even be done by bot, without violating policy. Does Wim b know the policy?
 * Wim b is accusing me of bad faith, of requesting undeletion out of "spite," when my concern was purely Wikiversity policy and welfare, at first. What this led me to, though, was a discovery of undiscussed and contrary-to-policy locks on multiple users, justified as being "spam-only accounts" when, on a review of contributions, that is preposterous for one or more of them. Wim b didn't do that and is not responsible for it, but this is all a pattern of response that, eventually, will be examined globally.
 * To me, the primary issue is whether or not this wiki is a safe place, where new users may make mistakes and learn from them. We have welcomed users who were vandalizing elsewhere (and whose contributions here also resembled vandalism at first. One never knows where reaching out to new users will lead, but it doesn't do harm, and it has done a great deal of good. A welcomed user is a watched user, but those who do global antispam often have no clue about this. They do a great job fighting real spam, and should stick to that.
 * The user page is not harmful. As a result of this affair, I've had an extensive look at the photography, I reviewed every single one of the 188 images on Commons, looking for pages that hadn't yet been deleted. So I created Photography as art/Augusto De Luca as a beginning resource. Enjoy. Maybe we will study other photographers as well. The user may never edit here, even if the account is unlocked. But it won't be for lack of welcome, on my part. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * @Abd if you're convinced to this. I Repeat: the spite you don't to me, but to the project, think to this...--Wim b 22:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do I detect a xenophobic hostility to opinions from outside interests? That despite the logical arguments presented, the opinions of "cross-wiki users" who have quite a bit of information and experience dealing with this behavior ought to be discounted, simply because they are not "Wikiversitans"? A type of prejudice is forming. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 22:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Current Status - According to the guidelines defined on this page, 'Pages should always be kept when reasonable concerns are adequately addressed. Reasons and responses should be specific and relate to Wikiversity policy or scope in some way...A clear consensus should emerge before archiving a request.' The reasonable concerns regarding this file are whether or not the page is 'spam', whether or not the account involved is a 'cross-wiki spammer', and whether or not the page violates 'Wikiversity policy or scope in some way'. Therefore, I invite those seeking deletion of this resource to point to the specific policy that it violates. Separately, I propose that an additional Speedy Deletion criteria be added that would allow for the speedy deletion of cross-wiki spamming, defined as indiscriminate advertising that may not otherwise violate local policy, but which is recognized as indiscriminate advertising when viewed collectively. Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's spam. Who edits on every language and type of wiki? Not even a UN translator, or someone using a software translator by person can make use of those languages for the purpose shown. Its a bot, with no purpose for the wiki. - Sidelight12 Talk 20:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not really a reason for deletion. For example, I have edits on a number of wikis, but I am not a hyperpolyglot. Many users have created userpages on all (or most) wikis. This rationale is not even based in guidelines/policy, so assume good faith? PiRSquared17 (discuss • contribs) 23:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on Spamming, it can be inferred that spam is indiscriminate electronic advertising.
 * Wiki spam is defined as 'a form of link spam on wiki pages. The spammer uses the open editability of wiki systems to place links from the wiki site to the spam site.' In this case, the only link involved is to Wikimedia Commons, on a file uploaded in June 2013.  The Commons file itself has a link to Flickr as the original source.  The Flickr page references the name of the artist, but only as it relates to reserved rights.  Since the page is not advertising for Wikimedia Commons or Flickr, it does not meet the definition of link spam or wiki spam.  If it did, the appropriate response would be for Wikimedia Commons to remove the offending file and break the link.
 * The page itself also does not provide any indiscriminate electronic advertising. The user is an artist, and this is his work.  It is posted on a user page.  The result is no different than a writer posting his essays in user space, or a researcher posting results of her findings in user space.  All of these efforts are consistent with the Wikiversity mission as 'a centre for the creation and use of free learning materials and activities'.  The page itself is not spam.
 * The account involved created similar or identical pages on 557 different wikis. There seems to be no possible explanation for this other than 'indiscriminate electronic advertising'.  There are no other supporting edits, and no efforts by the user to defend this activity.  The account involved is a cross-wiki spammer.
 * The question that remains is whether or not cross-wiki spamming violates local Wikiversity policy or scope in some way. I've looked around, and so far I have been unable to identify a policy or guideline that addresses this issue.
 * Dave Braunschweig then you're claiming cross-wiki spamming is allowed on en.wikiversity? --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm claiming that I can't find a policy which blocks cross-wiki spamming, and I recommend that the community adopt such a policy. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you're and this left me struck. Crosswiki-spam is a self-evident damaging action. I don't want to use common sense as a deus ex-machina but, matter of fact, fighting promotion is a common sense task for admins. I cannot figure out your pro/con evaluation which is obviously opposite to mine but also you evaluation of users' consensus which goes clearly for deletion and which shouldn't anyway be overriden. --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This should be really simple. There should be a policy to delete cross-wiki spam.  Then the page could be deleted, and we wouldn't even need a discussion.  But so far there is no policy I can find that supports deleting cross-wiki spam that doesn't otherwise violate local policy.  It is worth taking the time to fix the policy issue first, and then delete the page based on policy.  But so far there isn't any support to have such a policy.  Even you haven't supported such a policy change yet, which I find most surprising.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dave, I agree. The spam fighters commonly have little patience for policy, and frequently call references to policy "wikilawyering." Stated policies have been violated in this affair, more than once. It's justified by "fighting spam," but among the missing in action is a policy defining "spam," much less "cross-wiki spam." The spam fighters think it's obvious, and often it is. It's far from obvious in this case. Spam is normally recognizable from a single instance, and when that instance is repeated (and sometimes even if not repeated), we all agree it's "spam." This alleged spam is not like that. Users may create user pages on any WMF wiki, that is allowed by default. Users sometimes create many such pages, with all the content being identical. Users may include "self-promotion" on user pages, if it's limited in scope. Self-promotion, for an account with a real name like this one, inherently discloses conflict of interest. etc.
 * There is no policy prohibiting mass creation of user pages, if each of the pages doesn't violate local policy. There is a global policy that prohibits operation of an unauthorized bot, if it exceeds 1 edit per minute in rate. I don't think a bot was used in this case, but if it was, then policy would be concerned with actual edit rate. Account creation rate through automatic account creation is irrelevant, and that's what has been pointed to, so far, and I've shown that these account creation times are often based on activity on other wikis, not on the wiki where the account is created.
 * There would be no fuss over this page if it was obviously spam. It wasn't, and it isn't. But it can look like spam. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dave Braunschweig there should be a policy preventing me from modifying templates in order to disrupt site-performances? There are lots of pretty legit edits which could increase of about two or three times average page load times. Also why are you ignoring consensus for deletion? --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe there are already policies in place that would allow us to block a user who modifies templates in order to disrupt site performance. But this isn't a performance issue, and contrary to your assumption, I am not ignoring consensus for deletion.  I have appropriately clarified it, and I am awaiting further input from the community.  Your refusal to respond to the outstanding issue suggests that you are more interested in your own agenda than the local wiki.  That's a shame.  I appreciate your assistance, but if you prefer to be an outsider, I'm not sure I understand why you voted on a local issue to begin with.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There are no policies dealing with performances then we should supposed performance disruption is allowed. I have no agenda at all nor did I vote but it all started from my counterspamming. I'm simply pointing out a problem: LOTS of wikis are being used for SEO purposes and honestly I cannot understand how some people do accept it. I think I already gave answers to any of your questions, if I missed any feel free to ask me again.--Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 20:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with below) Vituzzu claims that SEO was involved, and that editors were "hired" to promote the photographer. We have asked for evidence, and it has not yet been supplied. Having reviewed what is visible, spending a great deal of time, see Abd/Augusto De Luca I've concluded that (1) likely no bot was involved, and (2) likely nobody was hired. There are appearances that can look that way at first glance, to a "counterspammer."
 * However, all that is irrelevant on Wikiversity. This page only links to a photo on Commons by a photographer with the same name as the account. Such promotion is not prohibited here. (If the photos were spam, it would not be allowed. They are not.) A professor here may point to their publications on their user page, and sometimes elsewhere, and, yes, a photographer to their work. They may also do that elsewhere, but apparently there is some global limit, unstated by policy. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you are correct. I did not notice that you hadn't voted.  But I suspect we may be having some sort of language barrier, because several times your responses seem inconsistent with mine.  I have already stated that I believe the user was driven by outside interests.  I have already clarified above that I believe the user is a cross-wiki spammer.  But our policies in place don't address that issue.  I have called for a policy that would address it, but all I've received in return is a debate on tangential issues.  If people believe we should have a policy that supports removal of cross-wiki content that does not otherwise violate local policy, they should say so.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For a user with images on commons to bring those to the attention of those who might choose to use them is not an "outside interest." These pages did not call attention, at least not directly, to anything outside the WMF family of wikis. I am not here arguing that the user should have been permitted to create these pages, but they are not "spam," unless the word is being used very loosely. Had this user dropped these images on others' user pages, that could be "spamming." But on the user's own page? No. This was an open and transparent action, not resembling SEO or ordinary spamming. Only the scale of it is actually questionable. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict apparently led Vituzzu to accidentally delete my comment above, which preceded his, below. I have indented his, then, to reflect precedence. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * (I really appreciated your last explanation) Rather than a language barrier I think it is a "perspective" barrier (and by this I don't want to mean, in any way, my perspective is more valid than yours): from my point of view we don't need a policy explicitly forbidding something which is definitely done in bad faith. I can understand your libertarian (in real world I'm strongly libertarian) point of view but I think it's an overkill for this kind of matter. --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Vituzzu. You are correct in your position -- we don't need a policy to prevent harm --, but there are some facts and arguments you have missed.
 * "Done in bad faith" is mind-reading. Sure, sometimes we can read minds, but it's not reliable. By focusing on what is easily subjective, antispammers make their work less reliable. Rather, the basis for deletion is harm. Regardless of the intention of the user, if the effect is no harm, we can even set aside policy and keep the material, if deletion is more work than keeping.
 * What I read in the comment is a belief that we can "deter bad faith" actions, by punishing them. It's a bankrupt philosophy in general, it's failing all over the world. What we can detect and deter is *harm*. Criminal intention, mens rea, is an element in criminal prosecutions, but preventing harm does not require a determination of mens rea. Basically, proof of mens rea is required before someone can be "punished" for a harmful action.
 * It is entirely possible that "promotional intention" helps the project. In giving permission for upload to Commons, a photographer may have a "promotional intention." We do not therefore delete the photos!
 * In sitting with this matter for many days now, I've become convinced that there was nothing at all done in bad faith. There were things done that were naive, a kind of naivete common among new users, and there was a very unusual action, the global account creation. There was harm from this, for sure, but only because it resembled spam and "spambot," and the user could not be expected to understand that.
 * Dave is spot on that there is no policy supporting deletion. Wikiversity has taken years to develop policies and procedures that usually avoid deletion. We delete spam the same as everyone else, and appreciate the work that global sysops and stewards to relieve us of some of that burden.
 * Spam is harmful. It defaces pages, introducing irrelevancies. There is a gray area, because Wikiversity is highly inclusive, where users may add a link to their web site as relevant to a topic here. It's allowed, but contained, when we notice it. These become editorial decisions, and we don't block users for doing it, unless they become truly disruptive.
 * But this user page created no problem here. I intervened because our traditions are very strong that we welcome users on the first non-disruptive edit. Period. We don't weigh and inspect their motivations. We don't check "cross-wiki contributions," and we often welcome users as refugees from problems elsewhere.
 * The tagging created a minor problem. David went ahead and deleted on the argument of "cross-wiki spam." As I became aware of what happened, I asked him to undelete the file. He did, following standard procedure (this procedure applies all over, speedy deletions normally will be reversed on request, and then the remedy is a deletion discussion), but because of arguments on his Talk page, instead of leaving it at that, he brought the file here for review. And so we get this train wreck of a discussion, because users who never would comment in an RfD here pile in with alleged facts that aren't. And then some start complaining that "consensus" isn't being followed. Consensus is expressed in site policies, individual discussions only show a slice, and that slice can be warped by who shows up. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolution: I believe that currently there exists a consensus to delete the page, and perhaps modify the associated policy page to reflect that consensus. This can be discussed at Wikiversity talk:Deletions in order to change the policy. I am also of the belief that policy exists to describe not prescribe current consensus and practice, and that this is a good use case to advocate for changing the policy. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 10:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have commented there, in the discussion TeleCom started, Wikiversity_talk:Deletions. There is no consensus to delete this page, and consensus is not measured by numbers of votes, alone, and this discussion is a good example of why. I do agree that policy should document actual practice; exceptions to policy, carefully considered, can lead to clarified policy. Most policies regarding spam assume -- without stating it -- that edits are not to the user page. What has happened here is that practices (not policies) aimed at general purpose editing, generally in mainspace, have been applied to a top-level user page, where exceptions exist and are documented (on en.wikipedia, w:Wikipedia:User pages). Antispammers assume that "promotion" is disallowed, when, in fact, promotion is allowed within constraints and limits. We will get a clear policy if we adopt the proposal TeleCom made, as modified by Dave, and some clearer definitions, with the user page being explicitly exempted for "moderate promotion," as is policy on Wikipedia. Where a page itself is clearly harmful, policy will not prevent deletion. This page was not, in itself, and by itself, hosted here, harmful, and nobody has argued that it is; except that some antispammers think that any "self-promotion" is harmful, per se, which is where they depart from policy.
 * The discussion there will be preliminary. If we want to modify policy in a significant way, and this is significant, we will use WV:Community review and site-notice it. Please don't start that yet until we have a longer discussion on the policy talk page. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have a question or two, the answers to which may help here. Wikitanvir created the user page Vituzzu. While I do not know if these are two different users or not, nor do I know if Wikitanvir has created 557 other user pages here or on other wikis, but if we find by consensus that we should delete Augusto_De_Luca should we not also delete all such multiple account creations at least here? Further, this discussion has been quite disruptive, yet Augusto_De_Luca though blocked but not banned has not been further disruptive here perhaps because of a global block. Should we not locally block disruptive Wikitanvir for creating multiple accounts here and leave undisruptive user Augusto_De_Luca as is? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikitanvir is a steward, and sometimes stewards -- and others -- create user pages like that. There is also a bot, I'm told, that will create user pages cross-wiki. Wikitanvir did not create another user account here, but a user page, in 2011. The account was created through SUL, automatically, in 2008. Calling Wikitanvir "disruptive" is not productive here. Yes, we do not ordinarily allow users to create a user page for someone else. Creation on request is an exception. Can an ordinary user request some other user to create a user page for him or her? My answer is, yes, it is not contrary to policy. There may be details that are contrary to policy or harmful, but we would not block anyone over it unless true disruption is involved, i.e., revert warring, incivility, etc.
 * There are 725 wikis, apparently, and Wikitanvir has 50,803 edits on 694 wikis. Vituzzu has 98,812 edits on 276 projects. These would not include the many logged actions that are not edits. I am here disagreeing with a particular set of actions taken by Vituzzu. This should not discount or deprecate the vast and tedious work that he does in fighting spam. The point can be made that stewards, and other antispammers, do, themselves, what they do not allow others to do. However, clearly, the general intention is to support the wikis by preventing and removing spam. We need only take special care to prevent that necessary activity from causing harm, by providing clearer guidance, through policy development, as to what is spam and how to handle it. My position is that a clearer policy would have meant less work for Vituzzu, not more. He'd have seen the cross-wiki account creations, suspected promotional intent, and stopped it quickly (with the far less disruptive Title blacklist), to allow warning and discussion, which would have been as little discussion as on a single user page. Instead, what is see is many hours of work, by many users, to delete harmless pages, and spinning out into article and page deletion discussions confused by "spam" arguments, when it is the content that normally determines deletion, not the original author or authors or intention. Pure spam is routinely deleted, but conflict of interest editing, which is what may be involved in the articles, is not. There are rules about conflict of interest editing, which includes paid editing, and disclosure of COI was obvious here, in the user name. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind comments and clarification. My vote remains at Keep. Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In short we are forced to have userpages everywhere in order to give people a quick reference for contacting us. Anyway it seems to be pretty easy to confuse two 8 years users with overall 250k edits+actions with a series of single purpose-copycats. --Vituzzu (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If one does not have knowledge of the usual intervention from Meta, that is often the logical conclusion. Wikipedia is a good example of "fishbowl" kind of wiki where users go about unawares of the greater Wikimedia movement, and oftentimes unaware of the global intervention work usually done by global or Meta users. Perhaps it is a similar situation with Wikiversity users.
 * Which brings up another point: edits are just one part of it, but what about the account creation? It's unlikely anyone without evidence of prior knowledge of Wikimedia sites would create accounts in such short times on other wikis and plaster tons of picture links to various userpages, which if anything is just an SEO attempt. Whoever it was probably did not know nor care about the existence of such wikis, nor what potential damage it could do to the Wikimedia family; they were most likely content to let the script run wherever it went without actually checking wherever it went so long as it generated the most promotion. And that includes, not only the Augusto de Luca userpage, but the four or five other socks we seem to be constantly omitting in this discussion about cross-wiki user behavior. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 20:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a great deal I have learned about this affair that I have not brought here because it is irrelevant to this deletion discussion. There is no identified sock puppet involved, and certainly there is only one user who created this one page, the only one on Wikiversity, our sole topic here. We don't care what users do elsewhere.
 * This is a safe place. My actions here stem from my long-term commitment to that principle. We have a number of major users because I stood for that, against efforts to sanction them here because of what they had done elsewhere.
 * The accounts were created to prepare for creating the user pages. They cannot be considered as a separate action. I think that the process started with the photographer intending to create a user page on every wiki with an article about him or images from him, but when he saw what CentralAuth did, he decided to simply create an account and user page on every wiki. Yes, it was unusual. But how was the user to know that this would be considered spamming and severely sanctioned? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Allowing/encouraging/accepting this type of automated editing for self promotion shouldn't be allowed. It comsumes server resources over small time scales, does not furtur the goals of the project, but clearly the creator of the bot saw this a benefit to the user, without any befnefit to the project.  Consuming our resources for their precieved benefit clearly seems like spam to me. Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Policy, Thenub. We don't delete harmless user pages.
 * While it was repetitive, it was not automated, as far as the timing data shows, and the transfer of data was tiny. (This was one link to a photo of his on Commons for each wiki. I often run more data than that in a "single edit." I roughly estimate about 10 KB)
 * Thenub, what makes you think this was a bot?. It's understandable, it looked that way, but a manual editor could have done this job in less than two hours. I tested creating user accounts like this, and I could do it sustained at 6 edits per minute, with bursts of 10 edits per minute. There is nothing like that in the data, except the misleading en.wiki data that was the earliest (that's caused by Central Auth, not by editing rate). The user actually took two days.
 * This user went did great deal of work, that is not being respected. We are assuming promotion as the motive. Some level of promotion, sure, such as a photographer saying "Here I am, you can use my images, any questions?" This photographer has many, many images in use in articles on notable Italians. His photography is excellent, striking. The users who were locked unquestionably made many useful edits that will apparently stand, there has been no effort to remove most of them, and removing them would damage articles. Yet they were called "spam-only accounts," and locked without warning, notice, or discussion. I dug all this up after the fact.


 * (There were 30 bursts of editing, at a rate that was well under 2 edits per minute during the bursts. So far, while this is certainly unusual, examined closely, it looks more like repetitive human editing than bot. I'm about ready to release the study. You can see the raw data and edit rate info at one of the study pages.


 * I am making attempts to contact Augusto De Luca, so far no response, but there is a language barrier, email addresses in various places may be inactive, etc. The user did something unexpected. It is allowed in policy for individual wikis. (w:Wikipedia:User pages clearly allows and even encourages this kind of user page.) There is no policy prohibiting it. (Antispammers think of any "promotion" as prohibited, but that's a great oversimplification.)


 * The steward violated a series of policies in locking, so far, six accounts and deleting about 77 standing articles, based on "promotion," extending over a three year period. Does the policy need revision or does the steward need guidance? That will be up to the community, I'm studying what occurred.


 * When this began, there were articles on Augusto De Luca on many Wikipedias and they would appear to a naive user -- i.e., not a Wikipedian -- to be stable. I suspect that the user wanted to open up personal communication, because the promotional effect of creating the user pages, if not for the deletion effort, would have been minimal. Who would even see them unless he started editing?


 * What is the policy on creating user pages cross-wiki? Stewards, global sysops, and antispammers do it all the time. When a user creates some marginal user pages here, with no other edits, what do we do?


 * We welcome them. In fact, this user was welcomed on quite a number of wikis, based on the initial edit.. Was that an error? Should welcoming policy be changed? Etc. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In reference to some of your questions, my answer would be experience. I am not terribly interested in the distinction between a slow bot vs. a fast person.  Mass creation of user pages in this way on a wiki which you do not edit cannot have very many purposes.  Sorry to sound cynical.  What ever grievences you have with the steward's actions elsewhere are not at issue here.  The question is whether this page should stay.  Welcoming policies vary from wiki to wiki, as far as I recall WV doesn't have an offical policy. As it was explained to me, user's should not be welcomed when they create user pages, but should wait until their first edit outside of their user page.  But SBJ and I overlapped at a few wiki's so I might be mixing things up with a sister project.  In any case, my opinion stands as it is. Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 22:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What "grievance"? Thenub, we would not be having this discussion if not for the global action. This user was welcomed and that would have been the end of it. The page was tagged, like 554 other pages. The tag was removed and there was protest. Basically, the claim of "cross-wiki spam" should be irrelevant if the user did not spam here. But it was made relevant by the claims behind this RfD.
 * Your statement of welcome policy is not quite how we have done it, though close. We do not welcome upon account creation, but we welcome upon first edit that is not vandalism or spam. We do not wait until the user edits wiki pages. I've done it for years. Occasionally someone welcomes upon account creation, and we ask that this not be done. Occasionally, I've seen someone welcome for a clearly abusive edit. My favorite was User:Abusemerump, so the welcome message was "Hello, Abusemerump."
 * I agree that "bot" should not be the issue. Except that everywhere this has been discussed, it is "spambot, spambot, spambot," and the actual content of the page is set aside. What if it is not a bot and the content is not spam? If "bot" was not important, Thenub, why did you mention "this type of automated editing?" What type? And is there a policy or guideline covering this? I am not claiming that if there is no policy, it's therefore okay, but ... if there is no policy, is it fair to punish the user? If the page is harmful, delete it, policy or no policy, but ... how is it harmful?
 * The argument that holds the most water is a claim that the user does not intend to participate. Yet, having sat with this piece of business for about two weeks, the only explanation I have found for his action (disastrous to him if he wanted the articles on him to stand unmolested, as they had for years), that makes sense, was that he wanted to open up communication. In spite of his having provided us, as free content, a spectacular series of professional photographs of Italian celebrities, we did not exactly welcome him, globally. He, and a series of fans and other photographers, mostly -- but not entirely -- SPAs, have been globally locked. That, again, is relevant here because he cannot respond, at least not with the account, nor could they respond.
 * And if that's the problem, we do not delete simple user pages because of an intent to not participate, unless they request the deletion. Without clear policy, Thenub, we end up with train wrecks of discussions -- or, alternately, unpredictability.
 * How we treat potential users is crucial to our future as a wiki. And how we treat the least of us is how we, to create content, and to learn by doing. If it again becomes unsafe, I can speak for myself, I'll be out of here. I'm way too old to waste my time again. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to What "grievance"?: When you start sentences like "The steward violated a series of policies..." I tend to categorize this a grievance.
 * Allowing this type of self promotion is harmful in multiple ways. Left unchecked it will this type of activity will become more prevalent.  Allowing wiki's to become platforms of self promotion is harmful to our reputation as a project which is seriously dedicated to teaching/learning, and our reputation which (I believe) negatively impacts our ability to attract new users.
 * Finally if he wanted to open up communication he would have responded to your attempts to get in touch with him. I find your arguments unconvincing.  I agree with the original assessment of cross-wiki spam.
 * I am unsure what your last paragraph means, did a word get left out by chance? I do not recall anything being unsafe, nor do I see keeping (or deleting) a page as a safety concern. Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 00:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thenub, "Violated policy" is often a code word for "was bad." However, my ontology is different. He violated policies, that's quite simple to establish. However, maybe the policy is the problem! Or, maybe he needs guidance from the community. Is that possible? I will be taking this it meta, it's likely. Meanwhile, we are dealing with this page. It is just one page, but there are implications for our policy. I think our policy is simple, which makes site maintenance simple.
 * Would the user page, standing undeleted, harm the reputation of Wikiversity? How? You want to know what harms our reputation? The reputation of the wikis is harmed when administrative action is unreliable, arbitrary, unpredictable. (And it would be harmed if it is predictably oppressive.)
 * "Platforms for self-promotion.* "Self-promotion" is an imputed motive. It's not the actual harm. The actual harm is unsourced and unverifiable articles, and POV-pushing, arrogance, and spam. In spite of the original speedy nomination and arguments, this page is not spam, by any sane definition that the public would understand.
 * Modest self-promotion is allowed and even encouraged on user pages. That's part of the irony here.
 * If every professional photographer in the world registered an account on every wiki and placed one of their photos linked from Commons on the page, and that photo was one which could be maintained on Commons (which does have some standards!), what would be the harm?
 * Your assumption about his communication with me is unwarranted. He's Italian. He has no way of knowing, unless someone tells him, that we are having this conversation. He registered and began creating his user pages immediately. He and his friends are not sophisticated users and did not expect the Spamish Inquisition, obviously, nobody who isn't familiar with the global antispammers expects it. He had no idea, I think, how important it would be to set up email notifications, especially if he was going to create so many accounts, it would be essential to do it at least on his home wiki, and then on all the others. But that would take hours of work. I think in reviewing all the SPAs, involved I saw one, who hadn't edited for years, with email set up, so I emailed that account. No response. That person may be long gone. I'm now trying independent emails to Augusto himself, from contact pages. I'm pretty sure I will eventually get through to him. But he may not know English.
 * Neither he nor any of the other five locked editors were warned before being globally locked. Now, you want to know about "safety"? If a steward can do that, he can do just about anything to any of us. These people had no way of knowing what was coming. As far as I can tell, they did not violate policies. They did some unskillful editing, and they did some good editing, made some positive contributions.
 * A culture that would treat them as they have been treated, or tolerate such treatment, is an unsafe culture. My training, with regard to such, is to fix it, or leave. (And, yes, "fixing it" includes finding out if my assessment is flawed.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 12:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete because Augusto De Luca cannot reasonably be expected to add educational objectives or implement any concrete improvements to their user resource page while their user account is locked, and the resource will continue to lack educational merit that reflect their learning goals while that remains the case. -- dark lama  00:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Other than what I just created (Photography as art/Augusto De Luca), there is no "resource" here. We do not have a policy or practice of deleting ordinarily acceptable user pages because the user is locked by the unilateral decision of a single steward. I have just initiated the process to ask for unlock, first with the locking steward, but that's irrelevant here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Creating barely minimal resources for the point of influencing arguments to your point of view, when the general consensus isn't moving in your direction, is not the way to handle RfD's. Please stop. As it stands the resource created has (in my opinion) no bearing on whether or not to keep this users page. Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 04:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it has no bearing. I mentioned it because Darklama had mentioned a "resource." We are not discussing a "resource," but a user page. I'm seeing an assumption of bad faith here, that the resource was created to influence this discussion. I don't see how it would do that. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Straw-men arguments are not the way to encourage constructive discussion. I think user pages are resources and deletion guidelines equally apply to them. The process of suggesting solutions that participants can learn from to implement concrete improvements cannot reasonably be followed threw because Augusto De Luca cannot reasonably be expected to address specific concerns and implement any suggestions while their account is locked. I think there are specific concerns about the contents of the user resource page that should be addressed. I think the user resource page should include educational objectives (SD1), any learning/teaching/research goals, or share something about the person that is likely to encourage educational collaboration. -- dark lama  11:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is very obvious that we treat user pages differently from mainspace "educational resources." User pages may be potential resources, and sometimes marginal resources are moved to user space. What Darklama proposes as a standard for keepable user pages is widely violated. However, if we apply it to the subject page, it points to a photograph by the user, hosted on Commons, which links through categories and "what links here" to much information about the user. That could indeed lead to possible "educational collaboration," and I created the resource mentioned precisely to encourage that. The problem at this point is that with the massive global deletion effort and the global locks of six users, Augusto De Luca and every user who was interested in his work (and who quite likely knew him personally) has been locked out, until and unless that is remedied.
 * In the past, Wikiversity was a safe place for users banned elsewhere to come and work. I put a lot of effort into protecting that and them. Always, there were attempts to pursue and sanction these users here. Users were, in the past, globally locked with no actual ban discussion. As a result of the disruption this caused, global ban policy was established and clarified. Users may not be globally banned without specific process, and that process has never been followed. There are, under the policy, no globally banned users. There is one user considered globally banned, by the WMF. As I'd predicted, this caused significant disruption and harm, right here in Wikiversity. (The Collingwood affair.)
 * However, a global lock is a global ban of an account, not the user. By applying it to users the steward considers "sock puppets" of some real person, the steward has effectively implemented a global ban. And that cannot stand, or, if it does, the wikis are not safe. This page, if kept, is a symbol of that protection against abuse. If it is deleted, in spite of violating no policy, in spite of being harmless in itself, no page and no user is truly safe. That's why this incident is important enough to me that I've spent two weeks doing little but researching and analyzing the available history (before it's all deleted!) I would rather waste two weeks tilting at a windmill, if that's what it is, than two years creating content and community structure and traditions that then slide back down the hill.
 * And if we have to go through this mess of a discussion every time someone thinks a user page is "promotional," then Wikiversity is untenable. And so I'm attempting to write policy to codify what I understand to be our general actual practice. To avoid this. A policy would have allowed Dave Braunschweig to stay with his original instincts. It would have allowed a speedy close if someone had started an RFD. That would be appealable, but, then, the cause for any ensuing disruption would be clear.
 * The attempt to clarify policy is being resisted, as it was in the past. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Overgeneralizing doesn't encourage constructive discussion either. No specific suggestions to address objections has been forthcoming that could be used to implement concrete improvements to the user page. Most discussions do involve specific suggestions and concrete improvements being implemented, and participants with an interest in the outcome can freely discussion and address concerns. This discussion is different because a user cannot participate in the discussion process. I think one discussion and decision base on one specific circumstance is by no means representative of a general practice. I think people resist clarifying policy when there is no clear general practice. I think repeatability is key to increasing acceptance that a practice should be clarified in policy. -- dark lama  16:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm totally puzzled. What "improvements"? The user page, as it is, is beautiful, could connect the user account with the real-world person, and needs no improvement. There is an obvious general practice: absent spam on the page, copyvio, or clear harm, we leave user pages alone. That is our obvious actual practice, speaking as one who has been highly involved in the maintenance of this site. Nobody has suggested, here, any "improvement" to the page. The comments might make sense if this was an educational resource. It's not. It is a user page, the top level user page, the one that we usually and most clearly discourage anyone else from editing.
 * However, if Darklama thinks the user page could be improved, Darklama could suggest an improvement, and a deletion discussion wouldn't be needed for that. If we decided that the content of the page was somehow inappropriate, it could be blanked. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Abd, I don't understand your puzzlement. I think Goldenburg111, Rschen7754, TeleComNasSprVen, Cirt, Sidelight12, and Thenub314 supporting deletion means that suggesting solutions that can be used to implement concrete improvements that further Wikiversity's educational objectives are called for. Reasonable solutions that are acceptable to everyone involved is not reasonable possible when one of the person's involved cannot provide input and collaborate in the process due to a locked user account. Implementing concrete improvements is not reasonable possible when the user account of the only person in a position to address specific concerns is locked indefinitely. I have suggested solutions already that could be used to implement concrete improvements, but the person cannot reasonably be expected to express their support or opposition to those solutions or implement some improvement of their own while their user account is locked indefinitely. -- dark lama  15:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I remained puzzled, but maybe this is what Darklama is saying. "We could suggest improvements, but we don't because the user would not be able to implement them while locked.".
 * That is simply not true. We have handled modifications to user pages for locked users in the past. It's done through request, validated by a regular user. Further, the lock may not stand for long, that's entirely unclear. Deleting the page, however, is not likely to improve the possiblity of "improvement," if such were possible.
 * The only argument I've seen for deletion that has reasonable legs is "user does not intend to contribute." That is entirely speculative. If we do not delete the page, if we choose to keep it, that will be maximally likely to encourage actual participation here, either by De Luca or by those who know him and his work. We harm that possibility by deleting the page. It is essentially rude.
 * This is not an undeveloped resource. As a user page, it discloses who the user is, real life (apparently), and introduces him by pointing to his work. It at the same time discloses possible conflict of interest. It does so in a very few characters, a file link.
 * The place to suggest improvements would be the user talk page, if improvement were needed.
 * I do plan to be making suggestions on user talk pages, for this and other locked users. I'll be suggesting how they can appeal the lock. They are not globally banned, that takes an RfC. These locks have not even been discussed on meta, yet, except on a page for Vandalism reports, which was preposterous (and no details were given so that users who did not already know what had happened could understand what had happened.)
 * I am in the process of appealing the global lock, see as the first step. The steward has been inactive for ten days, so I will wait a little more, then, if there is no satisfaction, go to Steward requests/global, and then, depending on response, RfC may be called for. There are definitely major issues involved, policy clarification may be needed, etc.
 * If this page is deleted, we will definitely need policy clarification here as well, eventually CR. We badly need deletion policy, lack of it bites us from time to time. I'm waiting for that, until we know how this will close. If it's closed by policy, the page would be kept. If it's closed by votes, it will be deleted. We still may need policy clarification, but I want to know how the community views this, so far. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's closed by policy, the page would be kept. If it's closed by votes, it will be deleted. - This is a premature conclusion.  It is certainly possible that policy will be defined that allows the page to be deleted, consistent with the consensus of the community regarding the page itself.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As you know, Dave, the page does not violate present (de facto) policy. Yes, it's possible, but unlikely, I suspect, that we will establish a policy (it will take WV:Community Review) that would allow deletion. Which comes first? If this is closed with delete, what are the policy implications? Indeed, a long-term question: what is "consensus" on Wikiversity? Who participates in it? I've long known that local consensus in discussions can deviate widely from broad consensus, i.e, what appears when discussion is truly broad, and not overly influenced by canvassing or other mechanisms which bring together users preferentially biased in one direction.
 * (On Wikipedia, in an unpopular RfC I filed, on sysop recusal failure, was 2/3 "ban Abd." Which violated RfC policy, in fact, but -- these were sysops, and sysops don't have to follow policy, unless they offend more popular sysops, that's the reality.) I didn't mind, because the RfC failing meant that pre-ArbCom process had failed to resolve the dispute. Jehochman beat me to filing the actual Request for arbitration. ArbCom confirmed my position. Totally. Indeed, they reprimanded me, only for taking too long to file. I was misled by this, because, in fact, underneath the public discussion was a private one, on ArbCom-l, which was essentially "ban Abd." But they had no cover for it, the case I'd raised was open and shut. That RfC demonstrated what I'd seen happen again and again in prior process involving the same administrator. His friends would show up and prevent consensus from appearing. And Wikipedia is utterly vulnerable to that. And we can be, as well, if it is votes that count. Sometimes that is exactly what happened, here. The permanent sysop discussion for Diego Grez. Canvassed votes. The closer failed to consider that, so Diego was narrowly rejected. He went a bit crazy over that. Diego was another young user.)
 * Consensus, real consensus, is possible, but not when one position assumes its own rightness, and ignores evidence and argument. Again and again, deletion process, I've seen, attracts votes, and then argument proceeds to justify the votes, i.e., new arguments are made up if old ones are shown to be defective. The first evidence presented in this RFD was 'blatantly false, misleading. Yet it obviously influenced votes. Are those votes, based on misleading evidence, to be considered in understanding "consensus"? Is consensus a Yes/No result? Generally, we expect sysops to close in accordance with policy, in consideration of evidence and arguments based in policy. Otherwise, they are just opinions, and opinions shift with the wind, and "majority" shifts with who shows up. If there is policy development here, what is it? I've been proposing clarification of policy, here and on the policy pages. It's been treated as if it were an attempt to influence the outcome here. Deja vu all over again, Dave. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Commment "We have handled modifications to user pages for locked users in the past." I recall a period of time when, and correct me if I am wrong, this model was proposed and implemented by Abd.  At the time there were a few custodians and some users (myself included in the second category) at the time who felt this was both disruptive and unwise.  Now there have been some gaps in my activity as of late, so maybe this has been more generally a accepted practice, but I think it is an awful idea that should never be repeated.  I was left with the feeling at the time that the only effect was to drag out a very bad situation which cost active custodians, users and founders of the project.  Now this was a while ago and my memory may not be perfect, if there are examples that don't involve names like Moulton, Thekohser, Poetlister, etc that worked out positively, I would be curious to know what they are. Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify it was not Abd's idea in and of itself that caused people to stop editing, but rather whole rather dramatic period at that time. Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 19:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As I recall, I've not been the only one to do this. I was not sanctioned for making any edits like that. There were noises made, sure. The process ended well with Thekohser, so why we should not mention that one, I don't know, except that Thenub was, if I'm correct, on the side of that ban, on Wikibooks, where consensus went against him and the locking steward, as also happened here. Globally, thekohser was ultimately unlocked. Moulton was unblocked by someone else. I would not have done it, it was a Bad Idea. I attempted to work with Moulton, editing as his declared sock, Caprice, and it worked for a time (Mouton is very bright and is actually a scientist), and it stopped working under complex conditions, including an unblock by an admin who then took no responsibility for what ensued. Moulton was not inclined to cooperate, bottom line. Poetlister, lest we forget, was a nondisruptive user here, and I unblocked him, as Poetlister1, a legal sock at the time, after discussion and according to policy, and I was emergency desysopped for that action (as if I was going to wheel-war or something). Who reblocked Poetlister 1, without discussion, violating policy? See the block log. Who filed and supported the emergency desysop request? It was being denied, as out of process, when Thenub supported it.
 * These sysops, so ready to delete and block and ban, basically have shown by their editing history, in recent years, that they don't care about Wikiversity. It's obvious. They care about something else. I'm not certain what it is.
 * The future of Wikiversity is at stake here. Are we a welcoming, safe place, or is this a place where sysops make arbitrary decisions based on other than the welfare and protection of the community? Is this a place where we, locally, protect users from harm based on what is done by sometimes arbitrary stewards? (At another time we might look at the history of the lock of Thekohser; it represented, as to what was visible, wheel-warring on the part of stewards; if there was consensus behind it, that was hidden and contrary to what had been publically stated, which, all of itself, violates the expectations of stewards. That kind of violation has become routine, it's obvious. Decisions are made privately, not based on public discussion, on private mailing lists and IRC. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * One more comment. When I arrived at Wikiversity, the place had been decimated by the intervention of Jimbo, with a series of actions that ultimately led to an RfC on meta, resulting in Jimbo's resignation of the intrusive Founder tools, he only kept the tools that would allow him to know what was happening. He only kept one tool, oversight, which potentially could be used to hide edits from administrators, because the tool did not allow separating the ability to see oversighted edits from making them. If you look at that meta RfC, it was filed over what had happened here. It was going down, about 2:1 opposed to removal of the tools, when Jimbo did similar at Commons, and then the support votes poured in, and Jimbo caved. My summary of this was: "Academic freedom? Bah! Who cares? But take away our porn, now there is something worth fighting for!"
 * In fact, if anyone had been paying attention, supporting the removal of Founder tools were quite a number of heavyweight users. It should have been obvious that there was a problem here. It simply took a more dramatic incident to bring it out.
 * Yes, drama here may indeed have a negative impact on users. However, consider what would have happened if Dave had simply said, as had other sysops, cross-wiki, "not spam, not a violation of our policies," when the page was tagged here. (he more or less did say that, but was then convinced by talk page comment that there was "cross-wiki disruption." And we don't have policy on that, and for very good reason!) Would this RFD have been filed? Maybe. Users have the right to do that. A great deal of the drama at Wikiversity, historically, has been related to deletion. When we moved toward userifying problem pages instead of deletion, much of that disappeared. Deletion, when there is any disagreement, is win/lose, extreme.
 * That is why, again and again, I'm suggesting that the only reasonable and efficient standard for deletion, for Wikiversity, is harm. Most harm from problem pages in mainspace is eliminated by userfying the page. Again and again, over the last few years, dispute was eliminated by userfying. Exceptions were rare. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree with you more. I dono't have the time, energy or manual dexterity to give a reply on this scale, but let me take one point and try to make clear why what you think of as a good thing was in practice a bad thing.  Take the example of Thekohser, which you say ended well.  As I recalled it ended with a long standing productive member of many communities (and someone I looked up to from my early days at WB) calling it quits on all wikimedia projects .  As a result, Thekohser used this wiki as part of a larger point to stick it to Jimbo, which was pretty clearly his goal from his wikipedia review posts (not to mention crowing over his "victory" over Mike).  In the process of using us and our community, he did through some good main space edits our way, a couple of dozen at most.  What has he done with his new found ability to edit here?  Well he knows he can always use our project to harass wikipedians that he can't get to through other channels.  So, we freed a troll at the expense of a long time contributor.  Good deal. Abd, you have a funny sense about which things cause harm.  You seem happy to avoid precieved ideological harm, for actual point of fact, "we have fewer active users/edits".  Thenub314 (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Harm to Wikimedia is harm to Wikiversity. The hours stewards invested in having to clean up this mess is harm to Wikimedia and therefore harm to us.  The debate you insist on dragging all of the rest of us through is harm to Wikiversity directly.  The simple solution would have been to delete the page, and then fight this battle at Meta, where it belongs.  If the appeal is successful, the user could return, and the page could be restored.  Instead you have chosen to fight the battle here.  That has a cost, and the harm to the rest of us continues to rise.  The page should be deleted, but not without supporting policy / proposed policy.  Therefore, I will work on that proposal, so we can put an end to this harm.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something in Wikiversity's deletion guideline that suggests deletion isn't supported? Why is "policy" being emphasized here? I think "policy" might be being used in the form of a straw man or red herring argument to delay action and distract from an otherwise simple process, when Wikiversity already has guidelines to address this issue. -- dark lama  03:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Assume I'm really dense here and spell it out for me. Which part of the deletion guideline supports removal of this page?  Because that's what I asked for many paragraphs and many days ago, but no one has identified the support yet.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "On occasion, deletion might be permissible when productivity from a fresh start is likely and concerns relate to Wikiversity's mission, scope, process, or policy in some way". Participants have expressed concerns within this discussion based on their understanding of Wikiversity's mission and scope regarding this user page. If consensus is that the page isn't within Wikiversity's mission or scope then the deletion guideline is being followed by deleting the resource. Also to reiterating what someone else wrote, guidelines/policies are descriptive not prescriptive. -- dark lama  04:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's worth reiterating here that policy follows consensus, not the other way around. Although concerns that keep/delete votes don't cite policy might be valid, for the interests of the assessing administrator, if a consensus decision here is to delete such a page, we could use the example as precedent for changing the policy. Right now, we are trying to justify the deletion by shoehorning a contrived reason into the policy, rather than using the deletion itself to justify consensus, and then consensus into policy. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 07:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not delete Physics equations
https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion&oldid=918937

This permalink seems to show that a request to delete Physics equations is pending. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE IT! The custodians and others who monitor my edits seem to be sufficiently knowledgeable about my efforts;I doubt any of them would delete Physics equations. Nevertheless, its appearance on that list makes me a bit nervous.--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Problem resolved. I accidentally called a template in that was to be deleted.  Calling the proper template removed Physics equations from the deletion list.  Thanks for your efforts; they are much appreciated by this editor.--guyvan52 (discuss • contribs) 02:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Autobiography of Mark Twain, Volume I
This seems to be a summary of mark twains newly published autobiography. I see this as more of a book report than a learning resource. I am new to wikiversity, so while i know this kind of material is prohibited at wikipedia (its cousin at simple english wp had this summary info removed as original research), it may be ok here. the editor, unfortunately, has an extremely poor history at other projects around understanding the scope and processes. thus, i am not confident he understands how to do so here. however, if this is a valuable resource as written, i will gracefully accept that lesson.Mercurywoodrose (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think its fine here. Original research is allowed. It is educational for anyone who is interested in Mark Twain, and it is similar to what could be read in school. For something like this, my only concern is whether paraphrases or plagiarism is used. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I find this one funny w:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2009_June_29&diff=prev&oldid=299372570. In another place, someone mentioned he copied an article without attribution. Always make an attempt to provide attribution. Also, the user needs to conduct good faith here. - Sidelight12 Talk 02:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sidelight, the ancient history of this user is not relevant to this RFD. I have informed the user of this RFD (he wasn't warned), and have also made some comments, but this user goes back to 2007 here, and is a user in good standing. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * All I said was for the user to practice good faith here, if the user comes back. I normally delete pages where not 1 attempt was made to provide attribution, because the effort was lazy, however there is not evidence of this here.- Sidelight12 Talk 03:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy close as Keep. We allow this kind of material all the time (and, yes, it would be deleted on Wikipedia or Simple). If there is plagiarism, it can be identified and blanked. Wikiversity is not just for completed resources, it is also for student work, exercises, and, yes, book reports. This resource is probably not well named. It should be moved to a better location. Mercurywoodrose, how about assisting this user? We let people make lots of mistakes here, regardless of what they have done, and help them to learn. It doesn't always work, but we rarely need to block anyone, or delete learning resources. At most we might move some work like this to user space. And welcome to Wikiversity yourself! This was your first editing here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

User_talk:Nolhay
No longer desired. Page was deleted, talk was not --Nolhay (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)