Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion/Archives/14

Volleyball
Please review the Volleyball learning project subpages and provide feedback on whether or not the community sees this as having appropriate educational value. I'm finding a lack of educational objectives, and a refusal by the editor to contain the content within the learning project, resulting in much more custodial effort required than educational value demonstrated. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This theme could generate all sorts of learning projects, but the actual resource seems on the path to becoming a Wikipedia article. Perhaps the editor could place these pages in his/her Wikipedia user space, and then link to Wikiverisity resources on the subject.  I have done that myself. See Wikipedia:User:Guy_vandegrift   --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you support blocking the IP from anonymous edits and asking the author to create an account so we can move the pages to user space? Other attempts at directing the project and communicating with the author have been ineffective.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Volleyball/Womens volleyball grandpix on my browser is a mess of markup code over the resource space. It needs some kind of fix up even to evaluate it. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * That's my point. This is just content dumping, with no apparent effort to educate and no attention to quality.  I can't tell if the author is putting a lot of time into this, or simply using it to develop/train a bot of some type.  But to me, it would all quality for speedy deletion as 'No educational objectives or discussion in history'.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I will have speedy delete d the page Volleyball/Womens volleyball grandpix, the page that Marshallsumter pointed out. I have no idea how long we are supposed to wait.  I will make an educated guess as to how long the block should last --maybe a week? --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Guy vandegrift, unless that file is harmful in some way, would you mind restoring it to User:Abd/Playspace/Volleyball/Womens volleyball grandpix? If it is harmful, let me know and I'll place a note there, so that if the user ever wants it back, it can be requested.
 * I decided to block for 8 hours instead. It's not vandalism.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikiversity is also for learning-by-doing, which includes creating what might even be, more properly, Wikipedia articles. However, this is not to be done in mainspace, top level, and only at lower levels if identified as a community learning project (i.e., a community effort to develop a Wikipedia article). This situation has arisen before, though not as extensive as the issue here. I created User:Abd/Playspace to host anonymous efforts like this, under my supervision, and any registered user may do this. This project should be moved out of mainspace, for sure.


 * So I see two alternatives here that respect the needs of Wikiversity maintenance:
 * 1) the user registers an account, and, yes, to encourage this, the IP is blocked with a message that suggests creating an account. The block is, of course, a soft block. It allows editing the talk page and it allows registering a new account and does not block registered accounts. (If it does, the user can let us know on the IP talk page. Very important that we establish that our goal is to support the user's learning or educational objectives. It is not necessary that a project here be designed to educate others, if it serves to educate the user, particularly if it is in user space.
 * 2) The pages are moved to a Playspace, which could be mine (I consent) or that of any user willing to host such a space. The user is then responsible for these pages, overall, and should watch edits to them to make sure that they are not disruptive or harmful. "Nonsense" isn't a problem, generally. If a user gets tired of that, they may Prod or Speedy the pages, or request semi-protection, which still gives the user time to rescue the content.
 * The goal is simplicity of maintenance, as well as maximum freedom for users. Both are important.
 * The issue with blocks isn't "justice," so 8 hours vs a week or longer would not be based on the "severity of the offense." The issue is protecting the wiki, while keeping it simple to maintain, and encouraging communication. An 8-hour block may expire with the user not even noticing it. I'd recommend a week, first block. It can easily be lifted if the user communicates, and that's not long enough to create a significant problem of collateral damage.
 * We don't need a deletion discussion for this, at this point. We just handle it, following nondisruptive principles that have been established. If we have a registered user protesting the measures, or insisting on deletion, then discussion here may be needed.
 * I don't suggest Playspace as the first step because it's much better if the user registers and communicates, and the files go in their user space. Fewer moves, perhaps, easier for Recent Changes patrollers to ignore. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts. The Vollyball resource was not at all disruptive or inappropriate.  It belongs on a wiki somewhere.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please close this. The creator was locally blocked to get attention, but blanked their user talk page. They were globally blocked, because they were creating similar pages on wikipedia, wikiquote, and apparently wikivoyage, as well as here. I went ahead and requested the set of resources be moved to User:Abd/Playspace/Volleyball, which was done. I think we are done for now. The user will be off global block in a few days. If the user doesn't register an account and doesn't use the Playspace, but does more of what was done, I don't think we will need to come back here. We want to be very careful and welcoming to users, who often have no idea what they are doing, and educating them is one of our tasks. If the user develops these resources to be eligible for mainspace, they can go back there. I do prefer a registered user to be responsible for resources, watching them, that's what I do with Playspace. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned Redirects
A list of over 2,700 orphaned redirects has been identified and posted at Orphaned Redirects. Many are simply left over redirects from a page move / rename. Others are intentional redirects to create shortcuts, address common misspellings, etc.

If there are any redirects on the list that you would like to keep (shortcuts, common misspellings, etc.), simply remove the line from the list. No explanation is necessary. If there are any you would like to identify for speedy removal, tag them in bold by replacing the * in front of the item with a ; (semicolon). Orphaned redirects remaining on the list after the end of January 2014 may be deleted. The page the redirect links to will not be deleted.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Something else should be checked, for some redirects. Are there any incoming, off-wiki links? Mostly, I've ignored that issue. At least, those redirects which seem likely to be such targets should be checked.
 * The list shows up a lot of Wikiversity naming problems. For example, see . It shows an early renaming that removed subpage structure, placing a subsidiary resource into mainspace, claiming that this would be the "Wikiversity name." The editor was one of WV's founders, the edit was in 2007, the early days. He was a Wikipedia administrator (long after being blocked here), and Wikipedia was founded on a flat model, but severely restricted what could be an article. I don't think he anticipated the problems of using a flat model here. The page came from Wikibooks, which uses subpage structure to organize chapters of books. That way, the entire book can be, for example, renamed, or, for that matter, deleted with a single command. (Watch out for these, the software doesn't allow one-button Undo.) I don't recall if cascading protection is allowed. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 17:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It will take a bit of coding, but I think I can pull links from the templates on sister projects and compare to see if any link to those shortcuts.  This will, however, raise a separate issue.  I should probably also make a list of what links here but doesn't have a corresponding page.  Our semester starts tomorrow, so I'm not sure when I will be able to get to this.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When I'm enthusiastic about this, I google the page URL and see what I can find. By the way, when we delete a redirect it can be useful to make sure that the target page is visible in the deletion reason, because someone who come into the deleted page can then see the target. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Closed as not needing continued discussion. Orphaned redirects are being routinely deleted with attention to incoming links. The deletion edit summary shows (or should show) the original redirect, so if someone does follow an off-wiki link, they can see where the page was moved. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-free files
Per the licensing resolution policy handed down by the Wikimedia Foundation, all files in violation of local Exemption Doctrine Policy rules must be removed. The first batch of files are fair use files that have no file "transclusions" to anywhere, and are only linked to a few pages, namely User:Bilby/Images and Wikiversity talk:Uploading files/Fair use audit; interestingly Bilby was a user who, like me, compiled these two pages to remove fair use files from Wikiversity. This batch of files should be deleted under Deletions 3: "Copyright works which do not satisfy Wikimedia's Terms of Use."

The second batch of files are not linked to the main namespace, and are direct violation of Uploading files rule #7: "Fair use content is only allowed in learning resources in the main Namespace and on media file description pages in the image namespace." They may still however need to be filtered for potential educational content, or their respective pages moved to the main namespace if there are any user pages that have a chance to contribute directly to Wikiversity's mission. Because as it currently stands, these files violate Wikiversity's Exemption Doctrine Policy and must therefore be deleted by discussion on this page. Please consider these as two separate deletion discussions.

(Procedural note: If Dave Braunschweig or anyone else can get a bot to tag these for RFD and notify the original uploaders, it'd be much appreciated.) TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I am going through the extended content. The file File:Figure-5.-The-light-signature-of-Boron.png can be deleted now or I can put a speedy delete tag on it. I asked Peny Ulap at Commons Graphics Lab to generate a PD image of the boron spectrum, which she has already made available, so that this copyright image is no longer needed and has been replaced in various astronomy lectures. Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's great! Do you think you could send either me or OTRS the written permission or re-released file? Hmm, it may fall under Commons:Threshold of originality, but I'm not sure, this looks too much like an edge case. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 19:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * RFD cannot handle a discussion like this, listing 1069 files. Rather, the files should be tagged for speedy deletion and/or prodded, to get them in queue for deletion, and only contested deletions brought here. Otherwise we are likely to err in
 * Discussing the obvious, or
 * Deleting what might have value because it is buried in junk.
 * One idea would be to create specialized deletion tags, if the ones we have are not adequate.
 * I am not about to go over this massive list and check for agreement/disagreement. The deletion of pages with non-free licenses or no license and no fair use rationale and nobody willing to assert one is not controversial. Tags will give time for that, and if no rationale is asserted, the pages can then be deleted without discussion.
 * Please reserve this page for necessary deletion discussions, instead of dumping the examination of these files onto the community all at once. If controversy appears in the deletion process, then files where it appears may be listed here.
 * As well, the use of a transclusion from user space here is iffy, leaving no WV space record of what was discussed.
 * The niceties of warning users that their uploads may be deleted should not be skipped. This may be distinct from warning that license information is needed.
 * I looked at only two files, picking them before I analyzed them.
 * File:Team logo.JPEG. Uploaded 17 February 2013. Tagged as needing license information, 8 November 2013, as one of 14 files, all deleted except for this one. MaintenanceBot (Dave Braunschweig) tagged it for fair use. It is not used in "mainspace" but in Topic space. The EDP requires "Fair use content is only allowed in learning resources in the main Namespace." In reality, many learning projects have used the Topic namespace. We could fix this by moving the resources into mainspace, but ... the EDP should be revised, that's a provision written under a different vision of how Wikiversity would be organized.
 * File:University of Surrey Logo (RGB 281 - 457).jpg. Uploaded by Leutha (custodian), 16:07, 22 April 2011‎. License information requested 11 December 2011‎. Supplied, as "permission for projects they are involved in." Fair use asserted by Leutha, 15 December 2011‎. In use in many projects in mainspace. The inclusion of this file shows that something is awry with the set of files included, this does not match the stated inclusion standards.
 * So:


 * Speedy close without prejudice against future filing for individual files as needed, or small and thoroughly homogenous classes, listed explicitly so each could be discussed if need, and with notice to users. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with Abd) Many of the files are from a variety of courses such as those offered by the University of Florida. There are way too many for me to even think of trying to make use of. Sorry! You might as well delete all of them and I'll properly license and download what I need when I locate it on the web, then tie it to a learning resource in resource space. Thanks for putting these together.


 * Regarding the boron spectrum: the NIST maintains line and intensity spectra on all elements so the copyright was for perhaps something else. Violet astronomy shows the commons file from Peny Ulap. Let me know if this doesn't answer your question. Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment:
 * I have confirmed the unused files are unused. They may be speedy deleted without discussion per existing guidelines.
 * The files that are used but in user space are engineering projects. They are in user space at our instruction.  The instructor has specifically requested that this content be kept as fair use.  If it is the community's wish to enforce the user space vs. main space distinction, it will be necessary to move the pages to main space under a corresponding learning project.  That wouldn't be an unreasonable request, but I recommend we wait until June 1 so as not to disrupt any learning in progress for the current semester.
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for filtering through them. And that's an acceptable proposed solution: we can delete the first batch and wait till the end of the semester to discuss solutions for the second batch. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This RFD has brought up the issue, and TeleCom's patience is appreciated, but the RFD is useless for implementing these deletions, unless we want to set aside policy. I just picked one of the "no-use" files, and the file has never been tagged for speedy deletion. The user was warned, generically, but the warning did not mention the filename. The warning custodian did not follow up, perhaps because he was globally locked. For these files, procedure should be very simple. Tag the files for speedy deletion, appropriately, such as "fair use claim with no usage after X period of time. Notify the user, then wait. Most of the uploading users will not respond, nor will others, and few files will result in controversy. The file I looked at was File:IMAG0199.jpg. It's a simple process, follow it rigorously, and it will be efficient.
 * Maybe Dave will run his bot on these, it's an appropriate use, if the pages are properly picked. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. (edit conflict with above) To allow fair use files, we are required to have an EDP; however, the content and interpretation of the EDP is up to us. The statement in our EDP about "learning resources in the main Namespace" is not based on the WMF wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, which doesn't mention anything like it. We now use other namespaces and User space for learning resources, and it's a mission-critical usage (because it allows users to manage their own learning). While we will still want to govern fair use in user space, our EDP should not depend on "mainspace."
 * The entire concept, however, of applying strict licensing policies to user space is bizarre, because re-users of free content will generally not be re-using what is in user space. We have, for a long time, avoided developing clear policies on all this, because of the difficulty of finding consensus. Maybe it's about time. The strict application of the EDP to "mainspace only" will destabilize our organizational process, damaging our educational goals. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've had a good read over at Bilby's talkpage and I note that previously Abd had been involved in using custodial tools to keep files that were in blatant violation of Exemption Doctrine Policy rules. I suggest that, as someone Wikipedia:INVOLVED in a previous affair, that he recuse himself from his matter and should have openly announced his involvement beforehand. TeleComNasSprVen (discuss • contribs) 22:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of not responding, but there is some value in what I found looking this over. Arbitrators sometimes "recuse" because of involvement, but I'm not an arb. Raising that issue here, itself, was disruptive.
 * I am not involved with these files, period. Years ago, I expressed certain opinions about the EDP, more or less in line with my present position. I looked at [[User talk:Bilby] ]and found an issue about linking to a file that had been deleted. Bilby had confused the file (which was ultimately deleted) with the user linking to it (it was a photo of her.) However, looking at the what I can see of the history, there was this sequence:
 * 17:00, 17 October 2011 I told Bilby I had replaced his speedy deletion template with a prod. This is more in line with what we now do. We give users substantial time to respond.
 * 17:36, 17 October 2011 S Larctia deleted the file anyway.
 * 17:43, 17 October 2011 I undeleted, following standard process, pointing to RFD. (I don't know if I left the prod on it. I should have.)
 * File went to RFD. My arguments then are essentially procedure now. Had the file simply been untouched after my tagging, it would have been deleted without that discussion. As it is, it was not deleted until the close, after I was blocked, 7 December 2011. This case is a good example of how a little patience could avoid a lot of discussion.
 * There was another discussion with that one. It started at about the same time, was closed two days earlier. The issue was the same. I argued, at that time, for a change to the EDP, as now, and for the same reason. We are, in practice, ignoring the EDP, for substantial periods of time, then, in bursts of activity, we enforce it. I think our policy was written by JWSchmidt, in 2007, based on the Wikipedia EDP, where the distinction between mainspace and other filespaces makes much more sense. I am suggesting a practical and easily enforceable EDP, that will at the same time respect our educational purposes and how we operate, and the WMF goal of freely re-usable content, with only limited non-free content accumulating. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Python/Using Wikiversity to cross-link advanced and introductory programming
Discussion is at Talk:Python/Using Wikiversity to cross-link advanced and introductory programming to preserve it with the article should the decision be to keep it. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and move. Per Dave's suggestion on that Talk page, this is a more general educational resource, not specifically a Python resource. The link has been removed. So the issue is really where to place the page. This is an example of a Wikiversity project that may have been successful, perhaps that story could be expanded, and this might go into Wikiversity space, but I don't have a specific place in mind. We could create one. Also if it was not useful, that could be explained. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Closed. Withdrawn by proposer. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Draft Communications Bill
I am starting a deletion request on this, because some concerns about this were raised by someone who gave critical commentary on it being an example of legislative over-reach, and in places very badly drafted.

I also have concerns that unless someone is prepared to make an effort to add commentary or disscusion on it, that it's technicaly out of scope, as Wikiversity is not a Web Host. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Deleting as 'author request', an accepted speedy deletion reason. ShakespeareFan appears to be the only notable contributor.  If there's any objection, an undelete request and discussion can be pursued.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Whether a draft Bill is an example of legislative over reach is irrelevant (apart from being a matter of subjective opinion). A draft Bill could be informative despite being extremely unwise, or even because it is unwise. A draft Bill might illustrate drafting technique. It might even illustrate how not to draft a Bill, so I'm not even sure poor drafting is a fatal objection. (For example, Opinion Writing 2000/2001 by the Inns of Court School of Law (5th Ed, Blackstone Press, 2000) gives, and sets out in full, s 7(11) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911 as an example of how, in their view, a statute should not be drafted). Poor drafting is also something that can be fixed by a rewrite. In any event, Parliament, and other legislatures, have arguably been churning out truly awful legislation for many years, so this example may not be significantly worse. A draft Bill is commentary on existing laws, by reason of being what it is. Whether such commentary might be considered implicit or obscure is beside the point. Draft Bills stimulate discussion by presenting new ideas. Indeed, draft Bills are discussion in that they present new ideas as to what the law could be in future, and what society could be in future. Such ideas might be meritorious or otherwise interesting, informative and educational. Draft Bills are useful, in that they can be used directly as they are, or as precedents that can be modified or built on (by anyone who reads them). Drafting manuals do exist, and they do contain precedents (ie specimens or examples). So Ilbert's Legislative Methods and Forms, for example, contains a collection of 'standard' clauses to be used as precedents for future drafts. The Law Commission and other bodies and individuals have been churning out draft Bills for years. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't a worthwhile exercise. I even recently read an article about privately drafted Bills from the sixteenth century. We have accepted draft Bills since 2009 at least, and I see no reason to change, as draft Bills are definitely in scope as they are certainly educational in that they comment on existing laws, present new ideas about 'jurisprudence', stimulate discussion, teach drafting, and can be used, directly or as precedents to be modified, etc. And if draft Bills were not within scope, we would not be able to include any original criticism of, or opinions about, or speculation about the future of, laws or politics. Indeed, we wouldn't be able to include any original research at all (since it always involves expressing some kind of opinion). Because draft Bills and essays are just different forms of expression for the same ideas. To try to draw a distinction would be like saying that the difference between poetry and prose means that poetry can't be fiction, which is nonsense. All that said, I do not oppose editors being able to 'withdraw' their own original research, in good faith, if they think it unacceptably unsatisfactory, so I don't object to this deletion. James500 (discuss • contribs) 03:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Admiring Odin
I request undeletion of the page Admiring Odin. It was part of the Science Fiction Challenge learning project. I don't understand the reason that was provided in the deletion log by User:Mathonius for deleting the page. If no Custodian is willing to undelete the page then please either put a copy of the page contents in my user space or email it to me. Thanks! --JWSchmidt (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ - The page has been restored to Science Fiction Challenge/Admiring Odin. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing comment. We routinely undelete speedy-deleted pages on request. The undeleting custodian would look at the page and see if there is a problem with the content. In this case, it was simply a very undeveloped exercise in writing fiction. I have prodded it, and notified the user who created it by Talk page and email. If there is no response, and if nobody removes that template, the page will again be deleted in three months. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Boubaker Polynomials
This page has been spread all around the wikis for a few years and already asked for speedy deletion here. However it has been proved that its content was an elaborated imposture, with sock-puppets and some auto-promotional secondary sources.

Moreover, the user has bypassed its blockings many times. In case of doubt these methods are telling us that it's not honest. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 22:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. No policy-based reason for deletion has been asserted. The evidence cited as "it has been proved" is a "what links here" link from Wikipedia, that shows over forty pages. Are we expected to read every one? What? If the content is an "imposture," then fix the page. If nothing else, make it an essay on the imposture, if you can. In commenting on an article creation request in 2013, a Wikipedian called Boubaker Polynomials "infamous." Great. Document it!
 * However, I would look at the last AfD for this on Wikipedia, from 2009: w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination). That AfD was based on similar arguments as here, arguments that, in fact, would generally be irrelevant even on Wikipedia. There were also keep votes, or some delete votes from well-known Wikipedians, but including an opinion for Merge, and the arguments given there would definitely be more than sufficient for Wikiversity. We even allow totally original, unsourced essays, properly framed.
 * However, the strong majority was for Delete, based in inadequate notability and lack of independent sources, which are necessary for Wikipedia articles. Those are not valid deletion arguments on Wikiversity.
 * The content was created here 15 May, 2011, long after the Wikipedia deletions. We often suggest to those who wish to create educational resources based on original research or otherwise not notable, that cannot satisfy Wikipedia criteria, that they instead create them here, because we can almost always find a way to include them and preserve site neutrality. This is far superior to continuing to irritate Wikipedia users.
 * There is, in fact, reliable source on Boubaker Polynomials, after the last AfD on Wikipedia, with different authors, see 200920102010, in addition to articles co-authored by Boubaker himself, published in reliable source, so that Wikipedia does not have an article on them may speak more to the inertia of the Wikipedia community rather than actual current lack of notability.
 * If this is some hoax, please show that -- on the resource talk page, most easily -- by other than referring to the crazy activities that often take place on Wikipedia. If there are a hundred "sock or meat puppets" trying to create articles on the Wikipedias on this topic, that might simply represent a community offended by what they could see as censorship. I am not going back and reviewing the old discussions of this on Wikiversity and elsewhere, but there were claims of racism, which get people excited.
 * Right now, Googling "Boubaker Polynomials," the number one hit is Wikiversity. I'm proud of that. The article can be improved, I'm sure. There is a PlanetMath page that could be used, it has many sources and was released under CC-by-SA 3.0.
 * I am not saying that Wikipedia should have an article on this, that's not really my business. But Wikiversity can, and should, and if the resource is misleading, fix it. Otherwise this is ad hominem and borders on incivility.
 * Now, as to impersonation, JackPotte should read the RCA report he linked. The person filing the speedy deletion request was an impersonator, which I strongly suspected, blocking the user, and then confirmed with the real user. See User talk:Popo Le Chien. The actual French 'crat was w:fr:User:Popo le Chien. In that response, I did suggest that RfD could be created, but then warned it would be a waste of time.
 * I am still of the opinion that this is a waste of time. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This waste of time is the publisher's strategy to maintain its assertions, and his social pages look serious. But for example: The Boubaker polynomials have been widely used in different scientific fields. If it was true it doesn't need to be pushed here in such a manner, and his NASA reference on harvard.edu shouldn't be in time out (and that's a way I found to show a hoax). Another one is good sense: how going from B_2(x) = x^2+2 to B_3(x) = x^3+x good somehow be used into cryogenics, which is the first mentioned application field? There no physical science at all in this sequence. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 10:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What a "publishers' strategy" might be is irrelevant here. If the page is a learning resource, of use for understanding the subject, or of use to the user for studying the subject or expression or any other aspect of learning-by-doing, the material will generally be kept here. It might be moved, though in this case, the issue is complex enough to require discussion first, my opinion. The resource talk page is the place to discuss changes to the resource. This is not an "owned resource," which we generally do not permit in mainspace, anyway, but restrict them to user space or attributed subpages. Above, I'm seeing objections to the content, which is fixable by ordinary editing. I have removed the peacock word "many," and have fixed a dead link. The article was a real journal article, it was probably a "convenience copy," perhaps hosted somewhere without permission, that was a dead link and not on archive.org. Nothing is being "pushed here." That page was created in 2011 and is largely a list of references to Boubakr polynomials in journals or other documents. Someone who wishes to study this topic may indeed find that useful.
 * As to the "NASA reference on harvard.edu," Jack, you are unclear, not giving specific references. The research to establish that sources exist and are not misrepresented is time-consuming. I've already put hours into this yesterday and today. Suppose that link is dead. Then anyone finding that it is dead can remove it, or, better, note it as a dead link, because someone may be able to find a live reference.
 * So, indeed, here is the original reference: International Journal of Non-Linear Mechanics (NASA Astrophysics Data System) D. H. Zhang,Study of a non-linear mechanical system using Boubaker polynomials expansion scheme BPES  http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011IJNLM..46..443Z . The problem here? The page creator linked to a reference to the page, it is not dead, but is slow to respond. The actual journal page is here: . That's published by Elsevier, by the way. This would be w:WP:RS, from 2011, not that it matters here.
 * I have fixed that link. Please raise other issues with the page on the attached Talk page, not here.
 * Inferring from a link that times out that there is a "hoax" is incautious, I suggest an apology. It took a few minutes of search to find the real source, and, meanwhile, the page popped up in my browser. The response time at harvard.edu is completely irrelevant to "hoax."
 * I am responding to the cryogenics comment on the resource talk page. This was, again, an incautious allegation. I urge the nominator withdraw this request. (A requestor may close a request as withdrawn if there is no contrary independent opinion, otherwise we would need to wait for consensus.) --Abd (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've understood your point of view, however my request is also founded on w:fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Mmbmmmbm which would be inappropriate to paste here. Yesterday I had found the first of your two books mentioned on Talk:Boubaker Polynomials, but personally I could publish such an e-book with no content myself, and [//www.google.fr/?gws_rd=ssl#q=isbn+978-1-61761-542-9 it's only sold on this site]. I'm not telling that I'm 100% sure that it's a hoax, does not want to hurt anyone, and have no interest to delete it. But I'm convinced at more than 50%, and proposed a consensus for the Wikiversity credibility. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I used the Wright State University Library search, restricting the search to "refereed articles" and saw many articles on Boubaker Polynomials, dating back to 2009. To be honest, I lack the expertise to read a single one of these papers and cannot exclude the possibility that this is a hoax.  There are so many online journals out there that I can never be sure of anything.  I agree that  The Boubaker polynomials have been widely used in different scientific fields is bad writing and probably self-promotion.  But people who are bothered by bad writing should stick to Wikipedia.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed the peacock language, that was trivial. I simply took out "widely." We allow bad writing here, yes, we do not expel students (or fire teachers) for bad writing, nor do we toss their work in the trash; rather, we encourage them to develop their writing skills. In an attributed essay, we may fix it with author permission or at least lack of objection, or we may simply leave it alone. This page, though, is not an attributed essay, it is a classical educational resource, in mainspace, supporting a topic of study, particularly with a list of relevant publications. If this is a hoax, it is a particularly deep and extensive one, a vast conspiracy. Rather, what I see here is, much more likely, an example of Wikipedian navel-gazing. Author or author community is disruptive on Wikipedia, therefore Kill The Topic! That'll show them not to mess with us! I have seen this far too many times, it's common. I could point to many examples, situations which still continue after years, long after notability should have been established, long after there were ample reliable sources for an article. Moulton used to point to this commonly (and with gross incivility): once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it becomes impossible to fix. We disagree. The fix starts here. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * - The attacks on the author's credibility are inappropriate. Wikiversity accepts essays.  JackPotte should note his concerns regarding the merits of the content on the article's talk page, or correct the article if he is knowledgeable in this subject.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've corrected a number of links that had gone south. This resource, however, is not an essay. "Essay" is relevant because we would keep this page even if it were an essay, i.e., user opinion. As the page is now, I see no opinion, only supportable -- and supported -- fact. If I've missed anything, though, any user may remedy the problem. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * one more comment I just noticed that the recursion relation is inconsistent with the series and noted so in the article. Also, suppose (hypothetically!) that we accept the accusation that Boubaker and Chebyshev polynomials are nearly the same thing, and that none of the articles on Broubaker polynonials are of value.  This might be an interesting article on how poor peer review allows careers to be built on nothing.  But our friend Popo le Chien needs to exclude himself from this investigation due to the "Arab" remark. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC) (Comment stricken soon after being written. I over reacted and should instead have assumed good faith.  I was over-reacting to this comment: https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action&oldid=764343#Please_delete_the_page_of_Boubaker_Polynomials_immediately --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict with strike-out above) I did a fair amount of work on this in 2011, when the page was first created here and promptly attacked. Popo le Chien is or was an fr.wikipedi bureaucrat and had nothing to do with the resource here. The nominator for speedy deletion here (irregular as made through WV:RCA) was not Popo le Chien, but User:Popo Le Chien, an impersonator, globally locked at my request, as I recall. (I took flak for this, it can be seen in my request for custodianship, but the real User:Popo le Chien thanked me.) No conclusions can be drawn from that sequence, because the impersonator may have been seeking to discredit Popo le Chien. It does appear that charges of racism have been made, vastly confusing the issues. Claims of "promotion" are often successful on the Wikipedias in obtaining deletion, in spite of policy. That is, a Wikipedia page, generally, is not to be deleted merely because an author was promoting something. Authors often are promoting something, they may be pushing a POV, etc. The policy-based remedy is to delete encyclopedia pages that are not notable, as shown by reference in reliable source, particularly where adequate sources to create a reliably-sourced article cannot be found. If a user persistently self-promotes or POV-pushes, they may be warned and, if necessary, blocked.


 * The original author here is invisible, the name having been suppressed by a steward. Often, my view, stewards fail to be concerned about transparency. I cannot, from my position on the ground, assess whether that move was necessary or not. I'd like to assume good faith, though I've seen counterexamples.


 * As I often find when I investigate these things, rather than policy being followed, popular opinion was followed, and "promotion" is very, very unpopular among Wikipedians. And in spite of claims that the wikis do not "punish," they do. Often. That is, the communities, acting through individual users, punish, or tolerate it.


 * So if an author is blocked or severely frustrated, and especially if they believe that the opposition to their work is racist or otherwise illegitimately biased, it is common that they will sock, thus establishing ongoing disruption.


 * What seems to be never done is to recommend to these authors that they place their work on Wikiversity, where it can be welcomed and framed appropriately, so as to cause no harm. Sister wiki links could then be placed on relevant articles, diverting discussion here, where we can use it. Instead, Wikipedians seem to prefer to fight, and will continue these battles for years. Looking at w:fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Mmbmmmbm linked by the nominator here, I am struck by how much work the fr.wiki community put into this issue, violating "no shrines for vandals." It becomes personal. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Developments
Guy vandegrift and I have been doing some work on the resource. I have also commented rather extensively in the fr.wikiversity deletion discussion. What I am finding is that sources are often poorly organized. For example, the page creator or editor seemed to think it important that a paper was hosted by the NASA abstract service. It is utterly irrelevant, almost always. In addition, there are dead links, sometimes they can be found on the Internet Archive, sometimes not.

"Team Boubaker" was desperate to show notability, and grasped at straws. In fact, by the third AfD on Wikipedia, it should have been clear this was notable (it should only take a handful of reliable sources), and the strenuous effort actually had the opposite effect from that intended. Wikipedians often hate "self-promotion," and that strong dislike can extend to those who support "self-promotion." Once the name "Boubaker polynomial" was considered to be self-promotion by Boubaker, a certain Wikipedian position was set more or less in stone. It did not help that there was massive sock puppetry, and attempts to stop deletion with sock puppets often fail, again, having the opposite effect from that intended; but what may have escaped notice by some was that this also took place among those attacking Boubaker and friends. There were apparently "false flag" operations, so-called straw puppets, where a user creates an account and pretends to support the opposite of his actual position, in order to discredit it. And then there may have been retaliation. This became a huge mess, it touched us on en.wikiversity, in 2011, with an impersonation account requesting speedy deletion of the article here.

Meanwhile, peer-reviewed papers, with independent authors, continue to be written on Boubaker polynomials, and by that name. Sometimes they are called "Boubaker-Turki polynomials," or "Chebyshev-Boubaker" polynomials. But the name is now firmly in use. Wikipedians continued to comment that they want the article or resources deleted because they "do not want to support self-promotion." So much for reliable source and notability guidelines!

Instead of fixing the articles or resources (though some tried to do this), users complained about the poor writing or editing, and voted Delete, and then the work of those who tried to fix the pages was wasted. I remember when I was active in the Article Rescue Squadron on Wikipedia. I learned that it was often a waste of time to work on articles under AfD, because votes would accumulate for delete based on the article before the work, and a closing admin often did not consider that. Too complicated, too much work! Sometimes admins do not explain the decision at all, just "consensus is delete." That is a vote, folks, whatever they call it. It is a trait of voting before evidence has been fully collected, and arguments raised and organized.

The resource we create and develop here will be useful for any future creation or deletion discussions on other wikis. I am in email communication with Karem Boubaker, and am advising him to avoid pushing this topic elsewhere, that it backfires if he does it. I am inviting him to participate here. He may already have an account that was globally locked without any disruption from it. I will be requesting this be unlocked, but response to requests like this can be spotty. It often works, if the basis is clear. It may depend on the steward. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Can't we vote now? I am not familiar with the official rules Wikiversity policy, but we follow current Wikiversity practice, then Boubaker Polynomials should remain on Wikiversity.  If our practice is in violation of the rules, that is a separate issue that goes far beyond these polynomials.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, Guy, How it Works, from my point of view. We have already voted (those bolded comments), but decisions are not made by vote, they are made by strength of arguments. It is fairly obvious what consensus is here, but there is no rush to close RfDs. Someone neutral, who has not expressed an opinion and is not involved, may close this early as snowing Keep. Essentially, there is no support for deletion other than the nominator, who has said he is considering withdrawing this. (That is, the nominator may close this as withdrawn, if he chooses and if nobody objects.)
 * Normally, RfDs are kept open *at least* a week, but Wikiversitans often are slow to respond. We have had RfDs open for many months. If someone dislikes that a Bad Page stands in the mean time, they can always go to WV:RCA and request a neutral custodian close. Traditionally, only a custodian may close with delete, but any user may close with keep or no-consensus. Sometimes ordinary user closes upset people who don't understand wiki process, but this is allowed even on en.wikipedia, though it became more rare with time. The key would be if the close actually represents, if not consensus, then something likely to be widely accepted. Another key is that we leave closed discussions on this page for a time (at least a week), and a close may be reverted by removing the close archive template. (The closing comment should be reported as an attempted close, it should not merely be reverted.) After archiving, a new RfD can be filed. We may frown on that if there are no new evidences or arguments. But we have never blocked anyone for doing it....
 * This is what I see: at this point there is practically zero chance of deletion. There is no policy basis for such, and plenty contrary. We have kept far more controversial pages than this, as to the actual content. The only thing that is truly controversial here is user behavior, mostly on other wikis, which we traditionally, almost all the time, ignore. We don't care if a page creator was a complete monster somewhere else, if they behave themselves here, they will be, as far as we are concerned, safe here. That, in fact, can protect the other wikis from disruption.
 * If this discussion were causing disruption, I'd want to see it quickly closed, but a full week would be the minimum, unless there truly is an emergency. I don't see that users are savaging each other over this, people are being civil, so ... it's fine as it is. Someone will eventually close. If nobody closes in a reasonable time, while consensus is obvious, I do have a penchant for making "involved closes," where I declare involvement -- since I voted Keep -- and close anyway. I only do this when I know the result is truly consensus or at least supermajority, I wait plenty of time, and those closes almost always stick. I'd be pleased to see others taking initiative like that.
 * Wikiversity, learning by doing. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 01:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insights.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Neoism
Please undelete Neoism. We are developing the fine art sections of Art practices, Art movements - these pages are stubs and being worked on slowly so please bear with us. They will develop at an organic pace as we find practical use for them. Thanks []


 * I have undeleted it, but you need to either improve the page or explain how you plan to improve it. My guess is that the appropriate place to continue this discussion is at Talk:Neoism.   --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)  Is this the right way to handle this request? -Guy


 * Yes, thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Some comments. The user did not read and follow the instructions. To be sure, they may not have known how to identify the deleting administrator. The page was deleted because it was isolated, not linked. If this is part of a larger learning project, it should probably be a linked subpage. We prefer that learning projects not sprawl all over mainspace. I think the overall resource here might be Art movements. My opinion: the page should not have been deleted, because it was linked from Art movements. Instead, it should have been moved to be a subpage of that page, I'd suggest. If there is no objection, I'll fix this. I'd link Neoism from the Neoism resource, that is always a start (and maintains a level of neutrality. If users want to go on and say that the Wikipedia article is FOS, they may. Hopefully they will say why they think that (if they do, I have no idea).

I am bolding the instruction that was disregarded. I would also add that if there is no response, to make the request on WV:RCA. We routinely "speedy-undelete," on request of a registered user, anything deleted without a completed WV:Request for Deletion. We might even do it for IP editors, admin discretion. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, this was how I saw and became involved with the Neoism flap. I later became quite confused about what happened. I thought Neoism had been deleted and restored, but it was not showing in the log. Something is very strange, I have not figured out what actually happened to make the history of the current page display the early edit history, but the log for the same page not show the deletion and undeletion. See history and log. MediaWiki bug, confused by the moves? The deletion shows for Neoism, which is a redirect. (I.e., go to the page, which will take you to the current page, then go back to the redirect and look at history and the log. That history should have been, I'd think, moved with the page move. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Abd, could you please stop worrying about this?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not "worrying" about it. There is a MediwWiki bug here, that led to some level of confusion. Is there some problem with the above comment, that I should "stop"? Why? Your undeletion was completely correct, serving the user (even if the request here was not following instructions, we serve users anyway.) I have written elsewhere about some of this sequence, drawing some conclusions, and some of what I wrote was incorrect because of that bug -- or misunderstood feature. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Colonial India
I have requested undeletion from the deleting custodian, with. While he has been active, he has not responded, hence I'm bringing the request here. This is not a claim of improper deletion, the deletion summary was No intention for real research: content was: " See article Battle of Khadki for an example of a small project. ==Resources== * w: Colonial India [[Category:History of Ind) I'll be interested in who created this, when, were there other contributions, etc.? From the summary, the content may not be worth saving, and, if not, I'll tag it for speedy deletion, or, if "maybe," I'll prod it or develop it. This page has an incoming link, which shows that it was requested as a project in 2006. Was the user who requested it notified of the deletion tag? How was this handled? --[[User:Abd|Abd]] (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No harm comes from this deletion, I promise.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However, I did not ask for a review of the page.


 * It is very important that the community be able to review the history of resources here. As I've stated, I think you are probably correct. The general policy has been that any user may request undeletion of a speedy-deleted page, and unless there is strong reason not to do it, it's undeleted. This should not be a contested process. I'm requesting that.


 * It's one minute's work, and you have now done more work than necessary. A Done template would have completed your task, then any custodian could handle the later deletion template, the most likely outcome. If there is then controversy over deletion, the procedure is Request for Deletion. That will not be necessary, I consider likely.


 * It is essential for our speedy deletion process that it be easily reversible. I should not have to argue for it. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In light of recent events, this request could also be interpreted as harassment of the deleting custodian. I, too,  have looked at the page, and there is nothing to restore.  Please let this go.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It "could be interpreted that way" by a hostile mind. This is a simple request, takes a minute to satisfy. How is this "harassment"? I could explain why I want to see this page, which would be far more complex than just looking at it. I don't just want to see the wikitext, I want to see the page history, it is apparently quite old, and something is obviously strange. Dave, please, drop the cudgel. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The harassment is the investigation into how a deletion was handled by the custodian three and a half years ago. The "hostile mind" comment is a personal attack on the contributor rather than about the content.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment, Dave. It did cross my mind also that this might be harrassment, but I decided to wait and see whether the editor was actively developing resources in any associated area. All there was is this]. I have found that the same user has attempted to disrupt another resource, this time expressing an interest with Otto Neurath. Again, no resources on this topic have been developed. There is a growing mass of evidence that this user creates very little content of themselves, but rather engages other contributors in often lengthy and sometimes even contentious discussions. In this context, to regard a request like this as vexatious, if not harassment, is reasonable and cannot be attributed to a hostile mind. This how provocations work, with an attempt project hostility onto the person being provoked. The suggestion that a user should contact the custodian who implemented a deletion rather than bringing it here was introduced by the same user early this year without discussion. There is no need for it, and indeed it perhaps opens up custodians to harrassment, and then a reluctance to implement even uncontentious deletions. I shall move the suggestion to the talk page. Leutha (discuss • contribs) 07:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * As I understand deletions, all including mine are subject to community review. The requester has stated, "I'll prod it or develop it." I see two ways to best handle this:

I don't see any answers to the questions by the requester but I will restore unless there is a consensus against. If others believe we should put this on the Colloquium (it only takes one) I will do so. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) restore or
 * 2) restore, request development, or delete.
 * Thanks. Actually, most likely I'll promptly tag it for speedy deletion, unless there is hidden content in history or some other course becomes visible. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you first need to decide whether the request constitutes harassment. If it is harassment, a legitimate response could be to not honor the request. If you are concerned about the questions being unanswered, another option would be to answer the questions yourself. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not good process. Harassment is a behavioral issue, deletion/undeletion is a content issue. Refusing a legitimate request because it is allegedly harassment, a very shaky conclusion here (I guarantee there was no intention of harassment), expands dispute and inflames it, it is punitive. The request itself is legitimate or not. I did see this deletion by looking at the contributions of the deleting custodian. It was the only deletion in all the custodian's deletions that even might be questioned. However, something is odd about the deletion summary. It's possible, but unlikely, that this could indicate a "process error." But one deletion out of all of them? Everyone makes mistakes. It should be no big deal, because, ordinarily, a speedy deletion mistake, if there is one, is easy to fix! I should not have to discuss this to see the page history, and that is what I want to see.
 * If there were a pattern of requests, suppose I asked for many of the deleting custodian's deletions to be undeleted, that could be a sign of harassment, if there were no apparent legitimate reason. Or many. Butone page, and explictly not claiming error. The problem is? --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if the request does not constitute harassment, indiscriminate undeletes takes time and poses the risk of undeleting something that violates a person's privacy. If a proposal to undelete pages for a study were drafted and accepted, we should set up a subpage so that we can redelete pages as soon as possible. --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No claim has been made here of a problem with the content. Actually, there is a suggested solution making this an easy process, see Talk:Template:Undelete. This is not "indiscriminate undeletes," it is undeletion after a request for it. Neither is speedy deletion, if due process is followed, "indiscriminate." Marshallsumter is a custodian. If there were harmful content there, it should be mentioned in the deletion reason. Or, more sophisticated, if mention can draw attention, this could be mentioned on the page after deletion, promptly itself deleted, to leave a record in the full history that any custodian would quickly see.


 * The idea that we should "redelete pages as soon as possible" implies that harm is done by deletable pages being visible. The proposal on the template, implemented as suggested, would not make the immediate content findable in search engines, it would only be visible in history. Only the undelete request, and any comment added by the undeleting admin (including possible categories, such as Proposed deletion would be presently visible. This would return the page to status quo ante, but with possible categorization and future handling. This is only for pages deleted without consensus on WV:RFD and with no claim of emergency. Obviously, if a page is deleted for "privacy concerns," the log should either show that, or an indication that the page should not be restored without discussion (that's common on en.wiki). This request is for a page that is, at worst, harmless. It appears to have stood for many years before being deleted.


 * Honestly, why is there so much drama over what should be routine? The only user being harassed here is me, by being accused of harassment. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Having viewed the resource and its history and discussed the matter with the deleting custodian, I have restored the resource Colonial India. The resource still has a deletion tag on it so those who may wish to improve the resource should do so. Otherwise, please feel free to change the tag to another form of deletion or leave as is and I will re-delete. If there is a way to involve a greater segment of the community in case there are those who might wish to expand this resource, suggestions are most welcome. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have moved the page to my user space, because it shows some Wikiversity history. It is at User:Abd/Colonial India. I blanked the page with a reference to history, and have examined the history on the attached Talk page. I did not know there would be any value until seeing the page, but suspected something from the in the edit summary. I did not expect what I found. As to educational value, the page was a good-faith attempt to respond to a request, see my examination of the history, so an edit will come out of this. The page is not of educational value otherwise, the deletion was no mystery in itself. However, the tag was not a speedy deletion tag, it was an RFD tag, and would have required a deletion discussion here, but that was made moot by prompt deletion without discussion. (I would say that it should have been a speedy deletion tag, or, better, proposed deletion, to give those who edited the page a chance to review it a last time. Three custodians had edited this page before the deleting custodian, and obviously did not have the opinion that it should be deleted. However, I agree with deletion, in the end, it was certainly within what was common custodial discretion as of then (and even now), and I have requested speedy deletion of the redirect --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅, the speedy deletion of the redirect. The very minor content was copied to the Topic page where the creation had been requested. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Undelete
When it rains it pours. Morton Salt. This was ad hoc deleted by a former custodian in 2009. Please undelete. We may be able to get most undeletion requests off of this page. Thanks. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 03:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Template restored. I hope it's useful!. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 11:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now I can see it, and either improve it, deprecate it, or whatever. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

✅. The template now has visible text to discourage using it until someone is ready to make it usable, and there is discussion on Template talk:Undelete. This is not to be re-deleted. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 02:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Cleaning up Userspace
Can I get an admin to follow up on the speedy deletions in my userspace? ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ by --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Volleyball
I am requesting deletion of Volleyball, Sport/Volleyball, and all related templates and content for the following reasons:
 * 1) The content as created violates CC-BY-SA licensing requirements, not crediting the original source.
 * 2) The content as created is not being organized in an effective or useful manner.
 * 3) Wikiversity is not Wikipedia.  The content is out of scope, as the only learning value here is to the user creating the content.  Which, by itself would be fine, if the content were properly organized and credited.  It isn't.
 * 4) The user creating the content is abusing multiple user accounts on multiple WikiMedia projects.
 * 5) Despite repeated requests, warnings, and blocks across multiple user accounts, licensing is ignored, organization is mostly ignored, and there is no response from the user.

See the following for more information:
 * Special:Contributions/Agahama and Special:DeletedContributions/Agahama
 * Special:Contributions/Alrieyna and Special:DeletedContributions/Alrieyna
 * Special:Contributions/Azylicure 2 and Special:DeletedContributions/Azylicure 2
 * Special:Contributions/Hackxelle and Special:DeletedContributions/Hackxelle
 * Special:Contributions/Hasfie and Special:DeletedContributions/Hasfie
 * Special:Contributions/Lahha_33 and Special:DeletedContributions/Lahha_33
 * Special:Contributions/Lainerraithe and Special:DeletedContributions/Lainerraithe
 * Special:Contributions/Maqwer AsiaWorld and Special:DeletedContributions/Maqwer AsiaWorld
 * Special:Contributions/Shane Jeuong and Special:DeletedContributions/Shane Jeuong

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked hardly any of these but Sport/Volleyball/2015 U20 FIVB World Championships doesn't meet any of these failings and the user so far is either following directives (I'll have to check recent contributions) or has left. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The resource Sport/Volleyball contains an enormous number of pages which I know little about, with the exception of the one I've mentioned above. If any of these are Wikipedia copies that you know of we can add the category Category:Wikipedia copies. There's way too many here to try importing and merging histories. As has been pointed out on the Colloquium, copying Wikipedia articles here is not a copyright violation. Adding the above category would solve this problem. The real concern would be importing and merging histories. Of the remaining 36 pages in this category, only a small number have histories imported from Wikipedia. As the import process is a custodian process and not free for any contributor to use, this alone would not be grounds for deletion. If it's all under the Volleyball project, it is organized. Effectiveness of organization alone is not grounds for nomination of deletion. There are many active users here who do not or have not used the subpage system. We cannot delete on this basis alone. Attaching the category mentioned would answer numbers 1-3. If any of these users are abusing multiple accounts here rather than being a productive user with multiple, that may be grounds for blocking here, but we must be careful we have many users here with multiple accounts. Let me check some of these pages in Sport/Volleyball. Number 5 is not grounds for deletion that I'm aware of. Number 4 is largely unknown to me so we'd need some detailed info on this. As always anyone is welcome to put a prod on any resource if they believe it has been abandoned let's say for at least three years. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Putting a speedy deletion template on a template rather than putting it into the category of Wikipedia copies may not be serving the best interests of the community as probably every template used on this project has been copied from Wikipedia or one of the other WMF projects. Templates copied here are for everyone to use. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding a category does not resolve licensing issues. At a minimum, the content must refer back to the original source. The amount of content involved isn't relevant to the discussion. If it isn't properly licensed, it either needs to be licensed or removed. There is an import process available at Import. If users refuse to follow the import process and violate the license agreement, the content can be deleted, particularly when their efforts make custodial support impractical. The number of related pages is growing. See also Special:Contributions/JESSARICAN2 and Special:Contributions/JESAAS11. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am inclined to support the deletions. Is there any evidence that one of the authors/contributors has attempted to communicate with us?  If not, we should certainly delete.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up information for this request. According to Steward_requests/Checkuser, all of the volleyball users are the same user. The content that has been created was done in violation of existing blocks and should be deleted. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree the content was created by sockpuppets according to Checkuser. But there seems to be a general okay to copy templates without attribution across WMF projects. The content of some of the resources themselves is not a straight copy from Wikipedia. Users JESSARICAN2 and AdmerOFVolleyball have been inactive since 26 September, and JESAAS11 is blocked pending communication (a good idea so let's see if it works). Content with Wikipedia-independent content and perhaps some copied without a citation may also be unique to here. Putting any of this content up for deletion is a freedom everyone has, individually. We also have users here who've declared that other accounts are sockpuppets. Involvement does not disqualify from applying deletion templates. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reference on any WikiMedia project that indicates it is okay to copy content without attribution? According to the CC-BY-SA license, even derivative works require attribution.
 * Whether or not the users are currently active isn't relevant to this request. This request is to delete the existing content based on violation of license agreement.  It should be amended to also delete as the content was created through violation of existing blocks, per Steward_requests/Checkuser
 * I'm willing to see that each page is tagged for deletion if that's what the community requires. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Two comments:
 * I aplogise for being so ignorant, but isn't it true that we can undelete later? If so, I suggest we delete a few pages to send a message.  If there is a danger that a deleted file can be overwritten in a way that loses all history, I suggest we blank and protect.  These phantoms need to speak up!
 * I told JESAAS11 that I strongly support allowing these scores to be posted on Wikiversity. Is there consensus on that?  If not, I suggest we open a discussion on a page somewhere and post an invitation on the Colloquium inviting all interested parties to participate.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 1 I agree with Guy vandegrift, now that we know these are sockpuppets, that the originator of these needs to speak up. We've had other users here uploading unlicensed files that perhaps blocking them would have been a good idea to start communication.
 * As to others who have supported the volleyball effort by this user for the sports value of these templates we have Guy, me, and Abd. There hasn't been enough contributors responding at the Colloquium to suggest that any consensus can be reached, if a mass deletion is being suggested.
 * These resources have value as stated before as a learning project. So it would require a strong consensus to override this, not just three or four of us. Apathy unfortunately also qualifies as consensus to allow them to remain.
 * If any of you believes strongly in requiring a site or cite licensing of templates, I'd suggest a site-wide notice after opening either a section of the Colloquium specifically or a separate page where, if necessary, all arguments could be summarized.
 * I left a request at the Help:Desk of Commons to see if anyone will comment on the copying of templates from one WMF project (say the development source) to another. I may also do this on Wiktionary. I have a vague notion that there is a general okay, but I cannot remember where I read this.
 * As other contributors here have acknowledged sockpuppets, this user should do the same. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have left a similar message about templates at the wikt:Wiktionary:Information desk. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * While I sometimes feel that Wikimedia is too strict about copyvio, they are strict. I would be surprised if they allowed people to copy Templates without attribution, especially since the attribution is so easily accomplished.  I suggest we delete and undelete later when somebody is willing to properly attribute.  The person who adds the attribution should be someone who wants to develop the resource, not a Custodian who merely tolerates it.  Suppose we delete and somebody creates a page over it.  Doesn't that mean that the original was lost forever?  If that is the case, I think we should blank and protect against editing until someone comes forward.  I volunteer to leave  messages on user talk pages, if somebody would show me where to find the usernames.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Having said that, there is no harm in waiting till Marshallsumter hears a reply on the attribution question.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just thought of something. What about a template that reads "This template has been copied from a template with the same name on Wikipedia" (Then include the date).--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's part of the response so far from Wiktionary, "When you copy a template from Wikipedia (or Wikisource, Wikibooks, etc.), please at least link the original template in the edit summary. If nothing else, if anything goes wrong with the template, we'll use that information when discussing whether the template could be fixed or deleted." Daniel Carrero. Their version of Import may be having problems. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no problem with deleting. Nothing is lost.  If someone creates a new page with the same title, the old content can still be restored by any custodian, and the histories can be merged, if appropriate.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding licensing implementation, see Licensing update/Implementation. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I researched the template copying question at MediaWiki. The page mw:Help:Templates specifically okays copying templates from one project to another and describes how to do it. Unless I missed something, this should end the questioning about copied templates. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * MediaWiki is the documentation source for MediaWiki software rather than the guidelines under which WikiMedia projects are licensed. The page at mw:Help:Templates describes how templates are copied on websites using MediaWiki software.  It does not describe the licensing requirements for content developed on WikiMedia projects, including Wikipedia and Wikiversity.  We need to refer to  for those guidelines.  See Licensing update/Implementation.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Licensing update/Implementation refers only to content pages, not templates. May I suggest asking at meta regarding templates. I sincerely doubt WMF would allow MediaWiki to include this feature if it is a licensing concern. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Licensing update/Implementation separates text content and media files. Templates are text content, covered by the same Terms of Use as any other text contributions, as indicated by the agreement at the bottom when contributing to template pages.  Please ask at meta if you are not yet convinced.  MediaWiki software drives many, many websites.  Its licensing is separate from WikiMedia licensing.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * According to mw:Help:Templates, the templates are mediawiki software. WMF has, I believe, a site-wide license to run mediawiki software. If it's the developer of mediawiki, it may not need a site-wide license. Content pages which can be included within templates are text content that probably requires appropriate licensing as some maybe under copyright, but the templates are licensed software, or proprietary software. This is why all the WMF projects copy templates from one to another without licensing concerns. The content transported to many locations by the use of the software is covered by Licensing update/Implementation. Unless things have changed, this also applies for example to Microsoft Word, Appleworks, and other such software. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Just FYI but Wikibooks directed me to mw:Help:Templates, specifically responding to information about copying templates. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's one of the steps listed in mw:Help:Templates: "On the new wiki, go to the page with the same name as the template you copied. Hit create/edit and paste the wikitext you copied. In the edit summary of each template, link to the original page for attribution." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In the History for Template:Country data EGY, I don't see the Wikipedia template content mentioned as a wikitext copy source. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In the History for Template:!!, I don't see the source of the template mentioned as a wikitext copy source in the Edit summary, yet the Wikipedia template does predate ours and the others on commons, wiktionary, and wikibooks. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We also do not require Edit summaries. Wikipedia does require edit summaries. We could require that Edit summaries for copied templates contain a cite to the copied template per the instructions from mw:Help:Templates. But, this is best done either on the Colloquium or as a special page by consensus. Considering that no one at Wikiversity has performed this so far as I know, apathy may require current process continue. Unless consensus requires this in Edit summaries against current process or consensus requires cites as exampled above. I believe we're stuck either way. If WMF wanted this enforced, they would have done so a long time ago when nearly all the templates in use here were copied. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's the response so far from commons: "All content of the Wikimedia projects including templates are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. So, you can copy, of course, provided that you satisfy the conditions of this license." Ruslik. The problem with any of these templates is that if the original (assuming we can find the original) does not contain any of the information such as author or template origin citation, then none that are copied from it are required to carry-out attribution because the original, where ever it is does not contain this. While I might believe any template has been copied from Wikipedia based on an earlier date. As pointed out above, authors on Wikipedia are either "Wikipedia" or "Wikipedia contributors". In addition, I have found no template anywhere so far that actually attributes anything or anyone per the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license. In fact, the only ones that have even made an attempt are those for the Volleyball effort where I put a template link. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Templates imported from Wikipedia include both an author list and an edit summary with link to the source. Either of these satisfies the attribution requirement.  See Template:Blocked sockpuppet for an example.  Copied templates do not meet the attribution requirement and need to have either an explicit source added or have the source included in the edit summary (or be imported and merged) to be properly attributed.
 * Based on today's research, do we have agreement on what constitutes properly attributed CC-BY-SA content and how that attribution may be provided? Do we agree that the content and templates added by JESAAS11 and linked accounts do not meet this requirement?
 * If there is agreement that the content and templates are not licensed, the question then becomes, does anyone accept responsibility for providing proper attribution, or do we delete and let anyone interested in developing this project in the future provide proper attribution at that time.
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, we actually have four problems:


 * 1) many of the volleyball templates already have histories imported, presumably from where they were copied,
 * 2) the only other template I've found so far with an imported history is Template:Blocked sockpuppet used to block the sock puppets,
 * 3) as I mentioned above we two have exampled the only templates that I've found so far on any WMF project that either may have been imported, are now included in Category:Wikipedia copies, or have a template linking the template to its apparent Wikipedia source,
 * 4) while our efforts may be conscientious towards the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license, if all or most of the other templates conform to the license because this attribution was never attached, which the license does state, then we may have few so far, or no templates to delete.


 * Regarding content, several of the recent contributions by the blocked user do not meet the Sisterprojectsearch test and therefore appear to be unique to Wikiversity. These also can be put up for deletion of course but because they are unique at least in title and some content, probably are not eligible for deletion either. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's part of what I'm referring to with the license: "If supplied, you must provide the name of the creator and attribution parties, a copyright notice, a license notice, a disclaimer notice, and a link to the material. CC licenses prior to Version 4.0 also require you to provide the title of the material if supplied, and may have other slight differences." This is from url=http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/. The key phrase is "If supplied". Template:!! has none of this from anywhere and doesn't include it in its Edit summary. Even the Wikipedia templates do not do this except they like our templates have edit histories. What instructions can we give custodians regarding deletion except


 * 1) for templates see if it has anything in the Edit summary indicating a source, if so don't delete,
 * 2) see if there's an earlier version on any other WMF project such as Wikipedia, if so consider deletion or a soft redirect,
 * 3) see if there has been imported history, if so don't delete, consider it may not have been supplied, so don't delete,
 * 4) see if there is already a template link to a likely source, if so don't delete,
 * 5) for content use the Sisterprojectsearch test, if there are no duplicates, don't delete,
 * 6) for content where there is duplicated content, consider a soft redirect. I've probably missed something. So for the custodian considering a deletion request, a blanket deletion isn't enough. What do you think? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The CC-BY-SA language "If supplied" refers to the source, not the copy.
 * Templates are not unique. Text content, including templates, copied from another source need history, reference link in edit summary, or reference link in content for attribution.
 * Imported is attributed, and will have both history and an edit summary link.
 * A link to a "likely source" could be changed to a reference if it is a source or removed if it isn't.
 * SisterProjectSearch is a good start, but inadequate. Google searches are much more effective if wanting to identify alternate sources.  Some of the content is from pages with non-matching titles, and some of it is not from Wikipedia, but is copied without reference.
 * Soft redirects are fine.
 * I think the burden shouldn't be on us to do this work. The burden should be on the user who copied without attribution.  If they are unable or unwilling to do the work, we should delete it so it can be created and attributed correctly in the future, or not.
 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree 100% with Dave's last statement. These pages have marginal pedagogical value: making them is  good for students, but nobody else would find it educational.  Part of the students' education is following copyright law regarding cc-by.  They need to fix it.  The fact that a few templates have slipped through the cracks (like !!) is not very relevant.  Now that this Volleyball thing has been brought to our attention (and I sincerely wish it hadn't), we need to fix it.  Question: What if we blanked the template page and protected it, leaving the talk page open.  Ask them to put in the attribution on the talk page, and we will unprotect.  Is that feasible? Keep in mind, that the pages will still show the scores, just the flags will be missing (I think). --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Blanked and protected is effectively the same as deleted, except it requires two actions rather than one. A custodian would have to unprotect, just as a custodian would have to undelete.  I don't see any advantage to a blank and protect strategy.  It's just more work.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that "If supplied" refers to the source. The problem is determining the source. The reason I refer to Template:!! is that it too attributes no source. But, deleting this would cause major disruption across Wikiversity. The date of creation here is later than that of commons:Template:!! so it could have been copied from Commons. Commons attributes no source. Therefore, if Template:!! was copied from Commons, the "If supplied" clause means we don't delete because it wasn't supplied there. I agree the burden shouldn't be on us to do this work. The simplest answer is to do nothing. No one from WMF is going to demand a take down of any template here. The content can be decided on an individual basis as indicated above. But, again, the simplest answer is to do nothing. We have a lot of resources here that need more attention than these. If the person socking doesn't speak up, prods may appear on some of these anyway. No improvement in three months, and deletion seems justified, out they go. Otherwise, I suggest we leave them all for now. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This deletion request is specific to the volleyball content. There are other pages that do not have proper attribution, and they can be addressed in time.  But those other pages were created in good faith by users in good standing.  The volleyball content was not created in good faith and the user was not in good standing.
 * We can either come to consensus on the content collection as a whole, or we can debate each page. I was hoping for agreement on the collection as a whole, but I can begin tagging each page for deletion if that is required.  Proposed deletion is not an adequate solution.  At most, a 7-day tag similar to  is as far as I can go, and is consistent with past practice for similar licensing problems.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Dave, you make the motion and I will immediately give conditional approval.  The condition being that you consider instead the blanking of the page along with edit protection.  If you reject that idea, I will assume you did it for reasons I don't understand (nor much care about).  It just seems that blanking and protecting is gentler and optimistic.  It also prevents someone from recreating that template.  I never figured out what happens to a deleted page that gets recreated.  Is the history of the old page lost forever?


 * I don't know the history of these socks on the other wikis. If they are pure vandals, there are easier ways to make trouble.  I think they might be genuinely looking for a place to post their silly scores, although that hypothesis doesn't explain their silence, I admit.  --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. Even if the template is not protected cc-by, the text on that page is. The text "||" on the template "!!" might be public domain. I'm not an expert on these matters.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we address the history issue first? Take a look at Federal Writers Project--Life Histories--Section 018.  In the upper left corner you will see "View or restore 14 deleted edits".  The history is there.  Then try restoring the page.  You will see everything is there.  Then delete it again, because it is abandoned with a new page replacing it.


 * Blanking is certainly an improvement over the status quo. My concern on protecting is that we have had requests in the past to proactively protect content from vandals.  We traditionally have not done that.  It's not particularly difficult to roll back edits if someone misbehaves.  It's not even that difficult to delete or restore pages when necessary.  But I do appreciate the feeling of optimism that blanking instills over immediate deletion.


 * If blank and prod is something we can reach consensus on, I can accept that as resolving the attribution issue and removing the content. Anyone who wants can then replace the prod with a softredirect or restore the page content with attribution if they are so inclined.  The prod on templates can be added with a.


 * Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Dave - My offer to support whatever you propose is now unconditional. If blanking/protecting is the best deal you can get, go for it. I am personally against the blank/protect because even though it sounds like a good idea, there may be unintended consequences. It might be a worthwhile experiment on a simpler case. My support for anything you negotiate is based on the fact that I trust you not to trick me and I trust you not to make a really bad decision. The fact that you might not make the perfect choice is of no concern to me. "Good enough" is good enough for me if it lets us move on.

I am striking this and creating the "A:" space because even the creation of such pages must be given great thought and care, if I can do harm with such a creation, somebody needs to know about it. BTW, Should I ask for permission to create an A space with a colon? Such spaces are relevant to the problem at hand. I really Wikiversity needs to explore something like this, and I need to experiment in that space to see how it works and, equally important, to help communicate my ideas to others. I plan to put very little into this A-space with a colon, and to make sure that what goes there can be permanently lost/deleted with no major harm. I ask about getting permission because colon space is full of surprises. See for example my favorite Egyptian genie on the Italian Wikipedia at Qed-her (she's not on Wikipedia).--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the support. For others reading, Guy was able to verify that deleted pages maintain their history and that history is restored with page restoration.  The other comments on namespaces will be addressed on an appropriate talk page.  -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Templates missing attribution have been blanked and proposed for deletion. Pages created by sock accounts have also been proposed for deletion. Closing request. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Mobile
Portal:State of Wikiversity Mobile, Mobile and Special:PrefixIndex&prefix=Mobile/* appear to be an early attempt at making wv easier to use on portable devices. Now that we have a Mobile view button at the bottom of every page this seems to be unnecessary. Should these be kept for historical reasons or deleted as a duplication of sitewide mobile improvements? --mikeu talk 21:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Most of the content developed by this user was implemented without community discussion or support. Dozens of pages have been deleted through proposed deletion, and dozens more are currently pending proposed deletion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I just noticed Mobile and Wkh/*. There could be a lot more... --mikeu talk 21:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested page deletion
I think that the page Chemical elements and Electrical Current should be deleted, but as a new arrival at Wikiversity, I wouldn't want to do such a thing myself. The two identifiable editors are clearly bona fide, and probably the first, at least, should be approached first, at least as a courtesy.

I have three grounds for deletion.

1. If there is a reason for having this content in an elementary introduction to computers, the reason would have to be made explicit for it to be valid. As it stands, the page just looks like a stub that has been misplaced from an introduction to chemistry.

2. The content (at this stage) is worthless. It appears to be intended for someone with no knowledge of the subjects, and yet would be incomprehensible to anyone that doesn't already know the science that it tries to teach. It is also wrong in details, possibly due to language difficulties.

3. If the content is indeed relevant, e.g. the editor intends writing content explaining a little about the electrical aspects (or electronic, which would definitely require a correction to the statement that electrical current is limited to conductors), then, I think, the chemistry and electricity would want separate pages (if not chapters!)

In my view, if the computer courses needs to make refence to these topics it would be better handled by external links.

--Alkhowarizmi (discuss • contribs) 09:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * All users are welcome to suggest pages for deletion. The easiest way to do that would be to add at the top of the page. This will propose the page for deletion and give anyone interested 90 days to make improvements.
 * The concerns you mention should be added to either Talk:Chemical elements and Electrical Current or Talk:Introduction to Computers so that they may be discussed with the content or with the course that incorporates that content.
 * As you'll notice from this page, we don't often have deletion discussions at Wikiversity. We prefer to either have pages be improved so they may be kept, or have them deleted by Proposed Deletion due to a lack of interest in preserving them.
 * Your recommendation offers two opportunities for you to be bold and make the improvements yourself. The first would be to improve the page content and make it relevant. The other option is to clean up Introduction to Computers so that the reference to chemical elements is external to the course. I would support either of these approaches, but it would be best to have the discussion on either the course or content page first.
 * Let us know if you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. I will pause a while to consider them, as I'm unsure what is best. (Some notes on my User Talk.)--Alkhowarizmi (discuss • contribs) 13:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

File:UBgWGbgSY2qCGhNxiiwxVoO G3Dh2eMd EV6eAc52WRQa!l8lPcdGVJSi89hhqiP.jpg
The topic title is File:UBgWGbgSY2qCGhNxiiwxVoO G3Dh2eMd EV6eAc52WRQa!l8lPcdGVJSi89hhqiP.jpg in the Federal Writers' Project - Life Histories. This project is supposed to use files and written accounts from the Federal Writers’ Collection at the Southern Historical Collection in the library of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. "With these resources and their own analysis, students not only document the life of the person for a worldwide internet population, but also critically examine the processes of historical production involved in creating life histories in the Federal Writers' Project." (Source: Federal Writers' Project - Life Histories Section "Project". But the above photo was obtained by the uploader probably using a library computer from Ancestry.com using an institution membership. Even Ancestry.com requires a paid membership to search and view images such as this one. The file was uploaded at 06:15, 20 October 2015 by ‎Khdough.

At 15:27, 29 October 2015‎ an IP 173.10.143.36 added this "This is my great-grandmother Mary Louise Emerson Fickling. The photo being used was taken from my own personal Ancestry account and I have the original of this photo in my possession. I was not asked for permission to use this photo. I would appreciate being sited as the owner of the photograph and that it was not something attached to the WTP project written history online. Thank you, Deana Wilson Duvall" With the comment "(Photo provided via Ancestry by Deana Wilson Duvall, personal photo collection)".

Here's some additional information: the photo was probably taken about 1897 and the copyright has likely expired. But, the owner of the photo appears to be a descendant and therefore the copyright would likely be current even though she didn't take the photo. She has asked "that it was not something attached to the WTP project written history online." Which I interpret to mean the Federal Writers' Project - Life Histories. I have placed the image in fair use to take it out of the Category:Files with no machine-readable license. If anyone else agrees this is the correct interpretation of her comment, as the FWP is the only use for this file, I will put the file up for speedy deletion. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And if the file's title could be a little more explicit... LOL --Thierry613 (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I could search the web to see if it's out there from another source. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The only version on the web per Google image search is ours. I could move it to give it a better title but no need until opinions are in. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 20:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Per WV:EDP item 4, "Requests from copyright holders that copyrighted content be removed from Wikiversity are honored." -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Wiki.png
This File:Wiki.png has nothing that links to it per Special:What links here. On the file page is a warning not to delete yet the file is in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. There is also a duplicate at Commons with the name File:Wikiversity-logo-en.png. Opinions? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 21:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The warning appears to be accurate. Wiki.png is the default name used for the wiki icon. See mw:Manual:$wgLogo. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Wiki does not exist.png
The topic File:Wiki does not exist.png is copyrighted but according to what links here is only on a user page blog. WMF logos are copyrighted and on Commons but this is apparently not. Another file on Commons has the same name but is not identical. Our file is in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. I believe this file should be deleted. Opinions? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be better to fix the license rather than delete the file for this reason alone. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Favicon.gif
This File:Favicon.gif is in the Category:Files with no machine-readable license. It links to hundreds of user pages and a small group of resource pages. Any volunteers to go to Meta or Commons to find out what statements to add or change to take this file's license template out of this category? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅. Note that this is a request for custodian assistance, not a deletion discussion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

HIV/HIV_swing_effect
Requested by Thierry613 (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Delete

 * Nonsense production. --Thierry613 (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree! I've tried searching it on Google Scholar and all I get are the same "tell me nothing" references listed in this resource. Either of us can put it up for deletion and let a third party delete. A valid or strong consensus is usually like 3 out of four for 75 %. No consensus is like 3 against 2 for 60 %. Five out of seven is kind of in the middle at 71 %. If no one objects to it being deleted, three of us is probably okay. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 19:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I vote for deletion.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 03:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no valid supporting source, it is incomprehensible as a presentation of original research, and is being used to promote the author rather than the underlying concept. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This contributor has been banned from the French Wikiversity for several years, but he continues regularly to post this stuff by sock puppetry. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep
I vote for keeping and developing the resource. reason the small comparaison.
 * I desagree because it is a profond insight in biological and medical science. The lack of references should not be a reason for deletion--2A02:120B:2C60:B600:70C9:4E37:FABE:558A (discuss) 11:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

2. reason: The effect may be a cure on HIV and in cancer.--2A02:1205:5020:35C0:E92C:7E40:BABE:CFAC (discuss) 15:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

3. reason: unprecedent in the history of AIDS.--2A02:1205:504B:98C0:91D0:AE2C:59B8:F8D1 (discuss) 17:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Undeletion request HIV/HIV swing effect
With the HIV swing effect HIV haves a cancer--2A02:1205:5049:93D0:1D68:3F29:7CE:EE1A (discuss) 15:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

❌ --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

HIV/The electron of AIDS
I propose deletion of HIV/The electron of AIDS for reasons similar to those noted above for HIV/HIV_swing_effect. There's no valid supporting source, it is incomprehensible as a presentation of original research, and is being used to promote the author rather than the underlying concept. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dave, would you like me to delete it now or later?--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you believe it qualifies for speedy deletion, now is fine. Otherwise, we should pause for (potential) discussion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Passin' the buck! I'll delete within 48 hours.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 22:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

deletion. Electrons move around everything. Delete whenever. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I deleted it.--Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

GomerOzDubar (Undelete)
Still a learning experience for me, i would like GomerOzDubar deleted, as i was directed to this site to store information and content which would not neccessarily meet guidelines for other Wiki's.


 * The content posted at GomerOzDubar was a Wikipedia entry rather than a Wikiversity learning project. According to GomerOzDubar, this content has been deleted twice as a "blatant hoax". Please see Mission and help us understand how the content you wish to add would be consistent with the Wikiversity mission. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Template:Query
Literally no use, as we have Template:Prod ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * That seems to be a very old attempt at having a more polite version of Prod that was probably not much used. If that is deleted we should also remove Category:Queried pages, Template:Query notice, and Template:Qr-em. I have no objection. If the Prod language needs to be changed we can edit the it or insert a switch for other uses. I have some preference for a single deletion request template perhaps with parameters like =speedy or =copyvio to distinguish between different kinds of request. --mikeu talk 21:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I support deletion of Template:Query --Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and delete it if there aren't any objections. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I checked "What links here" for Template:Query and its category of queried pages is empty, so no objections. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

What about changing it to a redirect to or ? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems better. I've closed this discussion as this discussion has been closed by the starter (me). ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Motivation and emotion/Book/2015/Sex crime victim emotion
The author of Motivation and emotion/Book/2015/Sex crime victim emotion posted a speedy deletion request of this resource. I changed it to a deletion request and initiated discussion here. Because the resource is part of a much larger body of work, an author request by itself doesn't seem sufficient for speedy deletion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I would like this page removed as it was done as part of a school assignment that is now completed. My work was identified as low quality so I would rather it be deleted as I feel that it does not add anything to the section that it is in. I was the only contributor to this page. MFatUC (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've read through some of your work and glanced at other parts. There are notations of "grammar?" and "Explain". These can be improved upon or corrected if you are interested or others may be. Much of what you've written is important and well described. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

❌ -- Closed. No support to delete. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 04:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Calculus I
Page created by user now known to be the sockpuppet of globally blocked user. This account now globally locked but continues to edit the article from IP addresses - the edit summary of sd being a giveaway. Nthep (discuss • contribs) 20:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Background information for discussion: Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia:User:Samantha9798
 * Wikipedia:User:Tyree999
 * Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tyree999/Archive
 * Special:CentralAuth/Samantha9798

According to meta:Special:CentralAuth/Samantha9798, the user isn't just globally locked, but globally banned. Deleting contributions based on CentralAuth status. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Pywikibot
This small course was just redundant of the MW:Manual:Pywikibot documentation, until two months ago, when it became completely obsolete and didn't work anymore with MediaWiki, even with the old bot version. Today, I've carefully checked all of its pages and I didn't find anything to improve the MediaWiki documentation. And by virtue of the agile software development, I don't think it would be relevant to maintain such a double documentation regularly. So this content must be removed. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Moreover its main author is inactive for six years. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Would the course or any portions of it be of any historical value, e.g. to python users? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't teach any Python command. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)


 * delete I agree with your request! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * delete-Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * delete JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would have been possible to edit the content to properly direct users to mw:Manual:Pywikibot for current information and create subpages for historical reference rather than deleting, but I have other priorities and obligations. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann
Proposing deletion of Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann and all related materials based on using Wikiversity for cross-wiki abuse and profiteering from Wikiversity, based on concerns raised at Request_custodian_action.

Please provide any relevant or additional evidence related to this discussion, if you wish. Please focus discussion on content ((links to edits in evidence) rather than the contributor.

Please provide any relevant explanation for the apparent cross-wiki abuse and attempt to profiteer from Wikiversity content.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To recap for those who don't feel like checking Request_custodian_action, Steigmann has and continues to engage in illegitimate sockpuppetry for block evasion on Wikipedia, and says he will continue to do so because he believes that the continued presence of this course entitles him to link to his Wikiversity course on Wikipedia. Guy vandegrift has removed promotional material (a GoFundMe link) from Steigmann's course.
 * In short, Steigmann violates Wikipedia's policies to promote a course on this site that he stands to make money from. My inner Vogon wonders if that makes the course a violation of Deletion Criteria 14, "Serious Ethical Breach," though I must admit that that would require interpreting "harm" in a particular sense.  My inner Vogon also wants to suggest that, devoid of promotional material, it is little more than a copy of the perfectly fine Radin source list with the addition of copyright violations.  Steigmann's page "quotes" the entirely of //.  Elsewhere, it plagiarizes from (the admittedly public domain) Andrew Lang's The Origins of Religion.  That was a casual glance at the first 5% of the page -- and that much is enough to have me inclined to agree with my inner Vogon that copyrighted material might be a problem. Ian.thomson (discuss • contribs) 04:28, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The quote you refer to "This uniformity, to a certain extent, is not surprising, for savage, classical, and modern spiritualism all repose on the primaeval animistic hypothesis as their metaphysical foundation." is properly cited by Steigmann to "Andrew Lang's Cock-Lang and Common Sense". This strongly suggests your accusation of plagiarism is false! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding "The British Journal for the History of Science" which published the review of Peter Lamont's Extraordinary Beliefs: A Historical Approach to a Psychological Problem, their .org site access states: "You may download, extract, store and index Content for the purposes of text and data mining ("TDM") for non-commercial research purposes only and may mount, load, integrate and analyse the results of TDM subject to the inclusion of a link to the underlying Content on our Site. Any copies of the Content stored locally by you for the purposes of TDM shall be deleted once such research project ends." It doesn't appear that Steigmann has violated their Creative Commons terms of use even by quoting the entirety of the book review! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The British Journal for the History of Science (BJHS) is not Cambridge University Press. Lamont's book was published by Cambridge but it was reviewed by the BJHS. Please see the review in question which says "COPYRIGHT: © British Society for the History of Science 2015." . Ben Steigmann cites the entire review of the book. By citing the entire review he has cited copyrighted material (some of which is behind a pay-wall). It should be deleted. Sci-fi- (discuss • contribs) 15:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Every written work is considered copyrighted by USA law. Steigmann has not violated USA law! And, even manually quoting the whole up to 2-page book review is not a copyright violation, in part because of the copyright policy I quoted, which is from "The British Journal for the History of Science", a .org not a .com! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 01:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Marshallsumter according to your Wikipedia user-page "This user has been banned for massive copyright violations" and you have been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia . Sorry, but you are not neutral on this subject and should not be here discussing it. Your agenda seems to be to support copyrighted material. You lack knowledge about copyright laws. You say Steigmann has not "violated USA law", perhaps look at the country in origin of some of the material, it is not all from the USA. As I said on the review in question it says COPYRIGHT: © British Society for the History of Science 2015. . The copyright policy that you quoted was regarding Cambridge University Press, not the BSHS journal. What does this sign mean to you? © ? Steigmann has copied the entire 2 page review from their journal onto wikiversity. Like I said it is against their copyright policy. Sci-fi- (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete I have reported Ben in the past on another website he has vandalised Rationalwiki and another, I am a member over there. Ben Steigmann is a man who suffers from self-confessed mental illness. He has personality disorders, symptoms of schizophrenia and asperger syndrome. He admits some of these things on his public Facebook that he linked to on this website. You said above do not talk about ben but I believe these factors should be taken into account. He is not fit to being editing a wiki, this is why he gets banned pretty much every wiki he edits. I have tried to be compassionate to him because he has problems but he shows no sign of stopping. He will go to great length to defend his unorthodox fringe views or pseudoscientific views, most of which consists of spam. For example this https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Parapsychology/Dispute_over_Scientific_Status/Steigman should be deleted because it heavily quoting almost entire peoples work. I find it unlikely Ben Steigmann will comment here. If he does he will most likely claim he has been "impersonated" by skeptics or a colleague of his was borrowing his computer. He has claimed these things on other websites to try and get out of his bans. If you check his talk-page on this website there are many accounts that he has created to try and 'boost' himself support. They are sock-puppets that he creates and talks to himself on. Examples PsychicResearcher, spiritualist researcher , Researcher guy + another 4 I counted. After seeing Ben's vandalism on wiki on the Frederic Myers article I see no reason why he should be a member here. He is using this website to promote his fringe views on Myers and other pseudoscience promoters. All of his material on this website should be deleted. No doubt he has already archived it and we will see it spammed on other wiki's in time. Sci-fi- (discuss • contribs) 17:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Please focus discussion on content (links to edits in evidence) rather than the contributor." The only evidence you cite is "For example this https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Parapsychology/Dispute_over_Scientific_Status/Steigman should be deleted because it heavily quoting almost entire peoples work." There are two references used by Steigmann. The first is an interview which does not contain the quoted text. The second is a 346 page book which is cited for the less than one page quote. This is a long ways from "it heavily quoting almost entire peoples work." --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Did you read the page he wrote? Only two references? The page he created has a total of 23 references. Some of the quotes he uses are not even referenced. Example the very long quote from Edwin C. May  that he uses that starts with the sentence "In the early days of the project, Targ and Puthoff (1974a) reported on a series of experiments they conducted at SRI with Mr. Uri Geller, an Israeli magician/psychic." I did a word count, he has quoted 2350 words! All taken directly from this paper . Ben does not cite or link to this paper. It is a 1996 paper from the Journal of Parapsychology. Ben's 'quote' consists of entire pages of May's paper. How can this be acceptable? Sci-fi- (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Every quote used by Steigmann has a cited source! I read a cite to May! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I am done talking to you, you are not being honest Marshallsumter. You first said this page Ben created has two references, it doesn't - it has 23. Now you say Ben Steigmann cited the Edwin May source, no he didn't. The 2350 words that Ben has copied is from a 1996 paper in the Journal of Parapsychology that I linked to above. Ben did not cite or link to this paper anywhere on the page he created. Now you claim "Every quote used by Steigmann has a cited source" which is another lie. Steigmann cited a paragraph from "Paul Hamilton Smith" which is unsourced. The quote is taken from a dissertation paper written by Smith in 2009, the first page of the paper mentions copyright. Steigmann does not link to this paper or cite the source of the paper. As for your claim "I read a cite to May!" you are lying again. Steigmann mentions May's name but does not refer anywhere to his paper that he copied from. No offense but you are incompetent and should not be involved in this discussion. Sci-fi- (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Checkuser evidence on Wikipedia has confirmed the accounts all belonged to Ben and he had additional sleepers . Sci-fi- (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete for all the reasons discussed above.-Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC) ...and for all the reasons discussed below -Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A similar discussion can be found at Request_custodian_action/Archive/18. The only difference between then and now is "attempt to profiteer from Wikiversity content" which as solicitation was deleted. One more such attempt would result in a block! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a difference since then. See Community_Review/Volleyball. However, this is first a deletion discussion regarding content. Blocking the user would have prevented the user from participating in the deletion discussion. Once a determination on the content is completed, we can address the user issue. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If it is of low quality but violates no copyright or WV rules concerning commercial use, shouldn't we just move it to a subspace of his user page? Would we be talking about this page if he put it there in the first place? I volunteer to do the deed right now so we don't waste any more time on this.  And I would leave a note on his talk page.-Guy vandegrift (discuss • contribs) 02:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Steigmann has and continues to engage in illegitimate sockpuppetry for block evasion on Wikipedia, and says he will continue to do so because he believes that the continued presence of this course entitles him to link to his Wikiversity course on Wikipedia." Moving the page to user space does not resolve the problem that led to the deletion request. From my perspective, the actions of the user alone justify deletion, irrespective of content. I'd also note that there is no response from the user opposing this action. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:26, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Just FYI: User:Ben Steigmann hasn't made a contribution to Wikiversity since 16 July 2017. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 02:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just FYI: User:Ben Steigmann hasn't made a contribution to Parapsychology/Dispute over Scientific Status/Steigman since 10 September 2014‎! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just FYI: All sockpuppets of User:Ben Steigmann have been successfully blocked before any edits occurred to Wikipedia as of 19 August 2017! Are we beating a dead horse here just to delete legitimate content that User:Sci-fi- and User:Ian.thomson don't like? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 03:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * In reviewing the discussion, I see four in favor of delete and one commenting. Discussion started on the 21st. We can stop beating the horse and delete the content tomorrow. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 03:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

And, if the edit warring between Steigmann and thomson continues, what have we accomplished? Oh, it's four against two for 67 % based on comments and obvious sentiment (Steigmann: "he believes that the continued presence of this course entitles him to link to his Wikiversity course on Wikipedia.", presented in absentia as evidence by User:Ian.thomson). Steigmann's stopped all contributions anywhere (WMF, all but one sockpuppet was edit warring on the Myers Wikipedia article, lately with thomson) on 21 August 2017 ("Discussion started on the 21st.") that I've found so far. --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 04:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Removing posts by community sockpuppets of individuals who were community banned for disruptive POV-pushing is not considered edit warring on Wikipedia. If you really think that calling it edit war is appropriate, please report me at the edit warring noticeboard on Wikipedia or even to the administrators noticeboard.
 * You take my words and present them as a quote from Steigmann, and then ignore the links which those words summarized (links that go to Steigmann's own words on Wikipedia). Did you bother checking the links to Wikipedia I provided?  Steigmann's own words from just before this thread started are hardly in absentia, they are as close to a confession as you're gonna get (is that what you've been wanting?).
 * If Steigmann continues to sock on Wikipedia, then at least he won't be using Wikiversity for as a spam redirect.
 * You can't really argue that we'll have accomplished nothing if he continues to sock while also arguing that he's stopped socking and therefore... we shouldn't delete a low-quality copyright violation that's being used as a spam redirect. Do you have a reason for keeping a useless duplicate of the otherwise fine Radin source list that is only distinguished by plagiarism, low-quality screeds, and a commercial purpose?  Because that's what this site will be hosting if the course isn't deleted (ignoring Steigmann's other behavior entirely).
 * Now, I'll grant that, just as you are apparently unfamiliar with Wikipedia, I'm likewise unfamiliar with Wikiversity. But it is pretty clear that copyright violations and using the site for commercial purposes aren't endorsed.  Could you please explain why the copyright violation-laden material is "legitimate" instead of insinuating that other users just "don't like" or calling me an edit warrior (an insult, by the way, though one I assume coming from ignorance instead of malice)...? Ian.thomson (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, if we're gonna assume motives instead of focusing on how the page relates to the deletion guidelines, should I suggest that this has something to do with your calling plagiarizing spam "legitimate content"...? Or would you rather focus on content instead of insinuations?  Ian.thomson (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Take a read of Attribution and copyright! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In many cases, Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann weaves between Steigmann's own ideas and large amounts of copied material (pages worth, well beyond any reasonable fair use claim, sometimes the entirety of shorter sources) with little transition and lackluster attribution. Many, if not most, of those sources are still under copyright, so that certainly falls under "[t]he unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it".  By the standards of the page you wrote, Steigmann's parapsychology sources page contains copyright violation.
 * You saying "no" and apparently counting Steigmann as !voting "no" in absentia (as no one else has supported keeping the material) doesn't really affect consensus if no valid reasons are given. Wikiversity:Consensus states "Consensus is not established just by counting votes. (...) it is the responsibility of all community members to give the most weight to rational arguments that support positions and points of view that are in harmony with the Wikiversity mission. Community members should assign less weight to discussion comments or votes that provide no rational argument to justify a point of view or that disrupt the project."
 * Seriously, you need to quit identifying with Steigmann just because you were both blocked for different reasons, quit projecting your desire for that to have not happened onto Steigmann's copyright violations, and quit transferring your frustration at your block onto this deletion discussion. You are not thinking clearly. Ian.thomson (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My situation with Wikipedia is for different reasons! and "quit projecting your desire for that to have not happened onto Steigmann's copyright violations, and quit transferring your frustration at your block onto this deletion discussion." is a personal attack for which you can be blocked here. Please stick to the matter under discussion! My in absentia quote is evidence presented above and used by Dave for deleting Steigmann's content. Evidence so used works both ways! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * And for clarity here are your links in order:


 * 1) and says he will continue to do so "Ian is biased against psychic powers. He has reverted many of my accounts on the Myers article. I made a controversial pro-Myers edit here  yet he keeps reverting it. I have a wikiversity project where I have all the Myers material and I have proven psychics were genuine. You will never get it deleted . As for this investigation, I am now using hundreds of VPNs which are not blocked. So I will keep coming back here. Ben Steigmann. Jamenta 2 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)"
 * 2) because he believes that "https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann the pro-Myers material is on my project it will never be deleted, stop the bias on WikipediaBen the Blissentia (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)"
 * 3) the continued presence of this course entitles him to "I advise users to see the pro-Myers material on my project here https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann Ben the Blissentia (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)" --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

And for clarity: "The quote you refer to "This uniformity, to a certain extent, is not surprising, for savage, classical, and modern spiritualism all repose on the primaeval animistic hypothesis as their metaphysical foundation." is properly cited by Steigmann to "Andrew Lang's Cock-Lang and Common Sense". This strongly suggests your accusation of plagiarism is false!". Has Steigmann sock-puppeted since 21 August 2017 since this discussion started? --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0
Wikimedia projects do not host non-free content per wmf:Terms_of_Use/en and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. This template, Category:Creative Commons Non-Commercial ShareAlike, and all content in that category have to be deleted.

I expect there is a misunderstanding. I started a discussion at Wikiversity_talk:Copyrights about making copyright policy here as clear as possible.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   11:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So that we may properly consider this request, please provide a reference to comments from WMF Legal supporting this interpretation. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 12:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am continuing this conversation at Wikiversity_talk:Copyrights because this is more of a general policy issue than an evaluation of these files.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   13:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Parapsychology/Sources/Steigmann
and the attached Talk page and any other pages deleted with it.

This resource subpage was deleted after a discussion that was founded on several errors:
 * the main complaint was "cross-wiki disruption," allegedly by Ben Steigmann, the attributed manager of the page, which was a "seminar subpage" allowing points of view to be expressed. This avoids most content dispute, as long as the subpage is presented in an overall neutral context. In fact, the disruption, which was drastic on Wikipedia, was by a set of impersonating socks, not Steigmann, and it was the impersonator, who had raised the fuss over Steigmann in the first place, seeking to attack the Wikiversity reesource. (On Wikipedia, but also here). See Steward requests/Checkuser and Request custodian action here. It was assumed on Wikipedia that Steigmann was a series of accounts that were not his, but rather were actually socks of the one attempting to get him blocked there, ultimately by provoking an administrator over this resource.
 * an SPA (sock of the same impersonator) was allowed in the discussion to mislead participants as to what Wikipedia checkuser had found. In fact, the Wikipedia checkuser had not connected the accounts to Steigmann (and if the one non-stale Steigmann account had been the others, it would have been seen by checkuser, but it was not.)
 * Steigmann was accused of "profiteering" from the resource. This has nothing to do with the resource appropriateness for Wikiversity.
 * There were claims of copyvio. Where copyvio is not the core of a resource, it is abnormal here to delete the resource based on it. Rather, normal editing is used to clean up copyvio. If there is a large amount, the user can be requested to clean it up. Only a failure of less intrusive approaches would lead to deletion.
 * The discussion was fast-closed without a clear policy-based reason, based on a vote count that included the abusive SPA (Sci-fi-). Socking rates are high for SPAs in discussions like this. The close was also by the proponent of deletion, which used to be strongly avoided here. What was the rush? There is more, but this should be enough.

I request that the resource be undeleted, the original discussion being hopelessly contaminated by the errors, and that if any user still believes that it should be deleted, they may request it again. However, standard deletion policy suggests attempting first to fix any alleged problems with the resource. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 00:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


 * undeletion! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 00:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comments attacking the user rather than discussing the undelete request itself have been removed from LadyDragoner's post. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have tagged the discussion contributions of this user, per common Wikipedia practice. As well, I will warn the user about personal attacks, since the above is not actually a formal warning. Custodial review is invited. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Please also see the user's CentralAuth, showing that the account was created only 22 hours ago, and that all edits associated with this account is related to the Ben Stiegmann issue only. Thanks. -Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * LadyDragoner is now globally locked, having been checkusered to confirm that this is a sock of the user who participated in the original deletion discussion, and, as well, the same user who created the sock puppet investigation on Wikipedia, and who also created all the abusive, disruptive socks who caused a Wikipedia admin to come here with the request. That admin has been informed, but has been inactive since, here and on Wikipedia. The comments here were removed by a custodian. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please close with undeletion or at least undelete until close. This discussion has now been open for longer than the original one. Normally, unless there is strong reason, a deleted resource will be undeleted for discussion of undeletion. No argument by any legitimate user against undeletion has appeared, and certainly not one adequate to set aside that practice. Copyvio, if it exists, is normally handled by normal editing, and nothing that I have seen in a copy of this resource is copyvio to an extent that would suggest revision deletion (but it is long and I have not examined everything). It is also possible that fair use could be asserted, as the resource is a study of texts, and, in particular, some texts may be rare, from manually copied notes. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)