Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 2

Image:Tu-134Cigarettes.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

Image was templated as "possibly unfree" here with no explanation (other than to say it was "possibly unfree"). Closing admin deleted it as a derivative work, citing US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works trumps WP:IUP. I, for one, find this interpretation of what is or is not a "derivative work" to be extremely dangerous, since, by extrapolation, we can conclude that any image that contains copyrighted artwork, labels, logos and so forth is not free - this precedent would greatly reduce the amount of free content Wikipedia can offer. It would also be mechanically unsightly, since there are quite possibly thousands of images that would fall under this threshold, and I should perish if there were to be another Commons purge. At any rate, if this deletion was perfectly valid, the language in the IUP needs to be updated to make light of this dynamic. Finally, the original uploader included a provision for the image to be used under fair use if it should, for some reason, no longer qualify as free, so at the very least it should have been given a new tag and reduced in resolution rather than deleted. MalikCarr (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse (by deleting admin) The image in review was a close up of a package of cigarettes with artwork prominently featured on the package. The artwork was not incidental to the image, and I believe this qualified the image as a derivative of the package artwork and could not be released under a free license because of that. Any work that contains solely copyrighted works (sculpture, recent paintings, advertisements, etc.) or is a collage of copyrighted works has been classified as a derivative and deleted in the past. The image was not significant to the articles it was in, so I believe it would fail WP:NFCC #8 for fair use. WP:IUP probably does need a line added in it about derivative works. -Nv8200p talk 22:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Balderdash - at the absolute minimum, it contributed significantly to the Tu-134 article as it provided verifiable and illustrative proof that the jetliner was so well-known in the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact that it had a brand of cigarettes named after it. MalikCarr (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The image was merely used for decoration in TU-134. To be significant, the image needs to support the text in a way that not having the image would degrade the article. The only text about the cigarettes was the caption of the image "The Tu-134 inspired a brand of Bulgarian cigarettes, very popular in Soviet Union." This could be incorporated in the article and does not need the image. -Nv8200p talk 01:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's nice. If the image is superfluous, as you claim, it should have been taken through the proper channels for removal of fair use images, e.g. a "disputed fair use" debate at the appropriate page. That said, since the Tu-134 article has zero fair use images currently, even the most draconian interpretation of the IUP would allow one per article. MalikCarr (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If the image had been tagged as a fair use image, the process you mention would have been correct way to approach it. However, the image was tagged as a free image and was removed for not being free. -Nv8200p talk 13:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

With the explicit notation that, should it, for any reason, be no longer considered free, it should be considered fair use. MalikCarr (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen the process work that way, but if DRV wants to endorse deletion as a free image, but restore as a fair use image, I guess that would be their prerogative. -Nv8200p talk 23:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC) -Nv8200p talk 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Overturn I must agree with my colleague-- the image contributed significantly to the article and is valid under fair use law. The derivative clause applies only to artwork, whereas this is a photograph. Jtrainor (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The derivative clause applies to photographs and other mediums as well. See Image:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg. The image has to be tagged as fair use because it is considered a derivative of the sculpture, and then the photographer had to release the image under a free license as well for the non-derivative portion of the image. -Nv8200p talk 01:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we'd best get to work on other images, if that's the criteria that's to be engaged in. How about starting with the article in question? Since the front image of the article shows, prominently, the logo of the airline Aviogenex, which is copyrighted artwork, I don't see how that wouldn't be invalid for free use as is currently tagged. Branching out from there, here's another image of an aircraft proudly displaying copyrighted artwork. Two instances, in fact - both the Pan Am crest and their livery text on the fuselage. Since that's technically two pieces of art, would that require two fair use claims? They're rather prominently featured in terms of position and overall content of the image, so they couldn't really be considered "inconsequential". Hell, while we're at it, the 737 Gallery on Wikimedia Commons is full of this type of image, and almost all of them contain, in no small amount, copyrighted artwork which, by WP:LOGO's own definition, are presumed to be nonfree by default. Is the actual livery of the aircraft considered "art" as well, by chance? Sure, the individual colors aren't, but having an exact combination of them and with specific placements and so forth sounds like it would be an artistic effort to me. In that case, I can't think of a single instance wherein a commercial airliner could be free content.

Perhaps I've strayed somewhat from the matter at hand, but I can't help but feel that this type of copyright hysteria, which was ostensibly intended to crack down on the demonstrably abusive levels of fair use images on Wikipedia, is rapidly spilling over into areas that are damaging the project. What have we lost from the removal of this image? Aside from verifiable and illustrative instances of the airliner's popularity, there was a whole host of information just contained in that picture alone: Aeroflot's logo (oh dear, now we have -two- copyrights in the same image! Eek!), Soviet tobacco purity stamps and licenses, unusual shrinkwrapping methods, and so forth. No, I'd deign that the image was -not- "decorative", as I've outlined above. MalikCarr (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The line for deciding if the image is a derivative seems to hinge on whether the copyrighted portion of the image is substantial or incidental, which has to be decided on a case by case basis. In the image under review, it was substantial. -Nv8200p talk 13:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That's much of a matter of opinion. MalikCarr (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an opinion based on similar cases in the past and to get other opinions is why we have DRV. -Nv8200p talk 23:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as the uploading user did not have the rights to release it as public domain. However, restore image, tag as fair use and add a rationale. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)\

  You'll have to forgive me if I still find this to be absolutely preposterous. Wikipedia is going to legislate itself out of existence before long... MalikCarr (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

  I don't believe the way the image was used would meet WP:NFCC #8. -Nv8200p talk 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  Or as an alternative, don't restore as fair use if it doesn't meet the criteria. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not sure if I am welcome here or not, but as someone who has a vast knowledge of Soviet aviation, these cigarettes were a copyright infringement, and whilst totally out of place on the Tupolev Tu-134 article, it would be appropriate for the CI article. These smokes were first produced in the 1970s in Bulgaria by Bulgartabac, by way of an agreement between the USSR and Bulgaria. The USSR is no longer in existence, and Aeroflot is an internationally registered trademark, and in 2002 Aeroflot took Bulgartabac to court to stop the Bulgarian company from using the Russian airlines' trademark. The result is this. The before court version is the one which was deleted (the top one on that page with the Aeroflot logo - which by the way was

never 'offered by Aeroflot' - it was a marketing phrase only) and the bottom (new) version is what the packaging was replaced with (minus the famous Aeroflot winged hammer and sickle trademarked logo). The TU-134 trademark (held by a Swiss company) was also under dispute in Russia because it is believed that a well known name such as Tu-134 can't be trademarked...I will have to dig into my archives to see what I can find on that issue. Further to MalikCarr, WP seems to be governed by laws of the US, so it is the US laws which are relevant here...some years ago American Airlines attempted to have all of its photos removed from a large aviation photography website claiming that all photos which show AA trademarks were breaching their copyright, they believe whether they were being sold or only for free view, it was still a copyright infringement. Copyright laws need to be checked in fine detail by a trademark lawyer in order to determine; if the photographer was on public land and the aircraft is in view, it's fine. If the photographer was on private land with permission of the 'owners' of that land and with permission to take photos, it's fine. If the photographer was on private property without permission or didn't have permission to take photos, it's not allowed (this is why AA has a policy of no photos, videos, etc on board their aircraft which are not 'personal related', meaning no photos of crew, safety demonstrations, etc). So it's not entirely relevant to this particular issue. --Россавиа ^Диалог 19:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I was going to close this DRV, but I just wasted time digging through the archives at PUI to find Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 March 1#Image:Tu-134Cigarettes.jpg. Could the people doing image DRV's please remember to link to the previous discussion, and could the deleting admins link to something a bit more helpful in the deletion log summary? What links here helps for non-admins, and the date the tag was added to the article helps for admins, but really, the AfD redlink at the top of the DRV should have been fixed when opening the DRV or soon after. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

If there was a court battle over copyright infringement between the manufacturers and Aeroflot, then that in and of itself would definitely warrant a mention somewhere on Wikipedia - if not the Tu-134 article, then maybe one for the brand itself. That ought to be a notable occurrence in its own right. MalikCarr (talk) 09:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mikri Arktos (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON I have re-written the aricle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eva_Evangelakou) and I wish that you review its deletion. The article is by no means a promotional one - no more than any other article from similar record companies. Thanks for your time. Eva Evangelakou —the preceding comment was added at 11:48, April 2, 2008.

• Sorry, but I'm going to have to say don't allow recreation for now. You need sources on that in order to prove notability. Also, I've corrected the title above out of all caps. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - You'll need to cite sources before anything else. Then, clean out the weasel words and self-promotional tone from some sections. Seriously, "innovative titles and on the carefully designed and packaged end product"? Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your company or product. -- Kesh (talk) 21:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Undelete due to efforts to revise the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • … the userfied article has no sources'. Zero. Effort is laudable, but we can't ignore one of our core policies. -- Kesh (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, we can. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh lord, here we go… Now I'm convinced this is a WP:POINT. -- Kesh (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Well, whatever point you're trying to make, it is not productive or convincing. We do have a Heyman Standard when articles are improved and I just cited a policy that we can ignore certain rules when we're trying to improve the project. Also, there does seem to be some (I don't believe this one is linked to yet in the userfied article) sources on the web. By the way, if you would like to work on article to improve one let me know as I'm always happy to help find sources and fix grammar. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Actually, you're wrong. The policy you cited does not state that you can "ignore certain rules." It does, however, state you can "ignore all rules." In any case, consensus trumps IAR.--WaltCip (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted for now. I appreciate the work which has gone into this but there are still significant problems. Firstly it still lacks sources and secondly there are far too many peacock terms. BlueValour (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, poorly sourced, user needs perhaps to go out and work on some other articles to get a better handle on how Wikipedia is supposed to work. User probably also needs to look at WP:BAI. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, besides the clear COI problems, this is spam. Rewrite the article to make it neutral, get rid of the peacockery, and source it with reliable sources, then we can review it gain. Corvus cornix_talk 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Draft article is not satisfactory due to lack of WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/temp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Request this be userfied so it can be tagged with {{humor}} and preserved at Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2008. Redfarmer (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose userfication.--WaltCip (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining why? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Does it help improve the encyclopedia?--WaltCip (talk) 19:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Allow. I'm all for it; that stuff was hilarious. No reason not to, far as I can see. Where do you suggest it be userfied to? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You can userfy it to me if you'd like...User:Redfarmer/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/temp maybe? Redfarmer (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Phyton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Late last year, this article was nominated for deletion. After a short discussion, it was ruled that the article should be deleted (4 delete/3 keep). Based on the consensus, Secret deleted the article. I had suggested a merge and/or redirect of the article to List of Greyhawk deities, hoping to preserve the edit history. After the fact, I decided to create a redirect anyway. I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the original article, and turn it into a redirect, thus preserving the edit history? If you agree, you can either obliterate the current edit history, or just add it to the original edit history. BOZ (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Overturn and restore article. Clearly no consensus (i.e. no agreement among the participants one way or the other) and the AfD was started by an account that was blocked for "disruptive nominations", while apparently also using socks at the time. Moreover, the subject is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on fantasy and given the large number of published books on Greyhawk, I would think sources can be found. Finally, the appropriate wikiproject was only notified just before the AfD was closed, so had that occurred earlier in the discussion, the results might have been more decisively clear. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what? As the AfD closer pointed out, the keep arguments had no reasoning given, so were throw-away !votes. Once that's eliminated, a clear consensus was to delete. As to the remainder… I'm really not sure what you're talking about. Are you suggesting to transwiki the article content? -- Kesh (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus means agreement. There was no agreement to delete the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you completely misunderstand how AfD works. Consensus must be based on policy, or else we have mob rule. Any !votes which are not based on policy are rightly ignored when determining consensus. -- Kesh (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There were no policy based reasons for deletion, though. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Which part of "non-notable" and "cannot be cited with secondary reliable sources independent of the subject" is not a policy-based reason? Are you even reading these articles & debates? -- Kesh (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"non-notable" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. And I have already provided a link to hundreds of Greyhawk books which can be used as sources. Thus, there is no valid policy-based reason. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

While simply saying "non-notable" may be something to avoid, it's true. Regardless, your second point is flatly contradicted by policy. Those are primary sources, nowhere near being independent of the original source. And you're not likely to find any secondary sources on this subject. Given your determination to ignore policy, I have to wonder if you're simply trying to make a point here on DRV. -- Kesh (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Not likely" does not equal "not." I hope that your determination to ignore policy is not trying to make a point here on DRV, but I'll Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore, besides all the problems Roi mentioned, the only user other than the nom who gave a reason either way was Gavin Collins. Everyone else either voted per nom or per Boz. I see no consensus here. Once the article is restored, a discussion would be appropriate on the article talk page to determine whether to bring this to AfD again, merge, or leave it be. Redfarmer (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• I'd say just perform the history merge, and don't restore. I also read the consensus in the AfD as delete, since no one could give a good reason not to (User:BOZ included, but his suggestion makes sense). Chances are it'd AfD again and be redirected anyways. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • An overturn would be lovely, but I'd be totally satisfied with this, which is all I'm asking for.  :) BOZ (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - Though I'm a D&D fan, we don't need an article on every god/monster/city/etc. in the game. They're not notable outside of D&D itself. Those asking for a merge should note that the merge target is just a list, so there's really nowhere to merge it to. The AfD had a solid, policy-based nom, several users who agreed with that reasoning, and several users who !voted to Keep with no policy reasoning. As there was no problem with the AfD closing, and I don't see anywhere valid to merge to, I don't see anything else for DRV to do here. -- Kesh (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How about not merging then and just restoring the edit history, so that people could take something out of it if they wanted to - which is all I'm asking for?  :) I don't really want the article to be fully restored either (I'd like it though), because if it gets restored fully, it will probably just be re-nominated at some point, if not immediately, or even speedily deleted. With the edit history in place, as a redirect, if someone wanted to access that info, they can see it. BOZ (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That's not the purpose of restoring articles, though. If information is being restored, it should be to integrate it into an article, not to avoid the decision of an AfD on the hope someone "might" want it and be willing to dig through the history to find it. -- Kesh (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • It's a good enough purpose. There's no benefit to the contrary. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • We do need an article on it. "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia Plus, there were no compelling policy based reasons for deletion. The topic is notable to a real-world audience and there are plenty of published books on Greyhawks from which to compile an article. As a sub-article of a main series, secondary sources are not as needed, but even so, go through all 200+ Greyhawk books (not to mention doing a search of reviews of those books), and I'm sure you'll find something. If nothing else, there is no reason for not at least restoring the article and keeping the redirect that many called for in the AfD, which while in effect not having the article proper would at least still allow the editors who worked on it to keep their edit history. Only hoaxes, personal attacks, and copy vios need be "deleted" which is an extreme measure. When a redirect location exists and there is no libel or copy vio concern, we do not prevent editors' contribs from remaining public histories. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Diderot is a nice quotation, and very relevant to many inclusion and content problems in WP, but this is not the sort of application of it he had in mind, and I am sure GRC knows this as well as I do. DGG (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I take "All things" and "without exception" literally. What Boz is asking for is entirely reasonable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has changed significantly since its inception. And even Jimbo has admitted that some things are not valid to have on Wikipedia. The community as a whole agrees, so I'm afraid your literal interpretation is not going to fly. -- Kesh (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The community as a whole does not agree, otherwise there would not be a disagreement here and so my interepretation flies high. And for the record, I agree that some things do not belong on Wikipedia, I just don't see a problem with the particular subject in question or the specific request concerning it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Guys, he's requesting a history merge with the redirect. No reason to make this a big deal. Seriously. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Have a pleasant night! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously - I didn't think it needed this much debate.  ;) It's either a yes or no. I'm not going to restore the pre-AFD article for reasons I've already stated. I've seen plenty of "delete" rulings where the edit history remains and the article winds up as a redirect - it seems to almost be at the whim of the closing admin. BOZ (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, it looks like the edit history actually already is intact. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone must have agreed with me then - thanks to whomever fixed that.  :) Case closed?

Michael Bounds (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Discussion was closed via a non-admin. The rationale was that the nominator was a likely sockpuppet, but his userpage did not list him as such. Also, there was a vote for deletion (my own), which suggests that the AfD should have continued until a consensus could develop. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The nomination was a continuation of User:Boomgaylove's large-scale sockpuppet attack, which has involved dozens of improper AfD nominations among other things, and wasted a vast amount of Wikipedian's time in contentious and pointless AfD debates. When deletion is proposed by a sockpuppet for disruptive purposes it normally ends up in a keep. The occasional delete result is suspect, and subject to reversal with or without drv. That makes any AfD discussion moot. The rare instance where the sockpuppet has picked a truly debatable article to nominate is a successful gaming of the system to waste people's time. I properly closed this latest one as a bad-faith nomination rather than allowing the disruption to continue. Let's table this rather than letting the sockpuppets play us. Once the issue is resolved on AN/I or via the outstanding checkuser request, any legitimate editor is then free to make a new good faith nomination. Wikidemo (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If the AfD nominations were contentious, then they weren't pointless. Pointless would be nominating United States for deletion, where everyone votes for speedy keeping. Contentious are exactly what AfDs should be, and usually are; you make the logical fallacy that ALL articles nominations by sockpuppets deserve to be kept. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A snowball delete could be deleted in any event, nothing stops that. But where notability is debatable it shouldn't be debated on the sockpuppet's terms for their amusement. That only rewards the sockpuppet for misbehavior and encourages more of it. That's not an abstract point - it's specific to this particular troll, who has now nominated at least 45 articles for deletion using different accounts, often rigging the debate in various ways. We're not some fire department that has to roll out the engine every time some delinquent pulls the fire alarm or sets off a firecracker. AfD is a place for legitimate editors to raise real concerns. We can't have banned editors nominating ten articles for deletion per day. Wikidemo (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not? We can have legitimate editors nominating ten articles for deletion per day, and I don't see anyone going on a crusade against them. Is the issue that they are sockpuppets, or that they are nominating ten articles a day for deletion? I guess I just don't understand how this is disruptive; if I were to nominate it, no one would complain. If you were to nominate it, no one would complain; whether it's a bad faith nomination or not, discussion of it's notability benefits the project and either improves the article enough to keep it or show that it can't be improved or delete it, regardless of whether the sockpuppet is doing it for their amusement or not. That is why our guidelines say that even in bad faith nominations, AfDs with delete votes shouldn't be speedy kept solely on the basis of the nominator's actions elsewhere. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's kind of like asking what's the harm in allowing a disbarred doctor from performing surgery. Banned means you're not supposed to be editing here period, not that you can edit as long as you follow policy, or sneak in and do whatever you want until you get caught. This person's AfD nominations have been a tool of disruption. In the last round it was a systematic campaign to get rid of certain rap artists, subsidized housing projects, and poor African-American neighborhoods the troll was calling "trash" or something like that. This time it's a sour grapes tit-for-tat retribution because two articles the troll wrote are up for deletion. The pattern with past AfD nominations has included canvassing, lying about what sources say, deleting references before claiming an article is unreferenced, filing administrative reports to accuse people of wikistalking and harassment, and posting "delete" votes from multiple accounts in the same discussion. Sometimes people, assuming good faith in the nomination, get duped into siding with the troll and supporting deletion. These are not good faith nominations that happen to come from someone who isn't supposed to be here, these are calculated attempts to game the system and cause trouble. Every AfD nomination, taken to its conclusion, takes a few minutes of the troll's time and sometimes hours of work for everyone else. Trying to watch over each of these nominations as if they were legitimate just throws concerned editors off the path of dealing with the sockpuppetry. Wikidemo (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment, see the ANI, RFCU still pending but its quacking. No comment on the subject's notability since professors seem to go 50/50, but he's published a lot TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't looking there, I was looking at the suspected sockpuppets list. In any case, I guess I'll just go renominate this myself. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reopen/relist, non-admins should only close uncontentious AFDs and speedy keep guidelines say that even vandalistic AFDs should not be speedy closed if another person has expressed a delete opinion. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No way, in the case of abusive sockpuppets. Either it's IAR or change the guidelines, but I will close sockpuppet AfDs and generally undo sockpuppet disruption on sight. Please don't relist until we've got that issue under control, which at most takes a few days. There's nothing so urgent about debating the notability of a professor that it can't wait to be done the right way. Wikidemo (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because it was potentially a sockpuppet doesn't mean "oh noes, a sockpuppet nominated something for deletion, therefore we have to wait to continue the debate on the matter." Our policies on speedy keeps actually go right against what you did (emphasis mine): "The nominator is banned, so they are not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is speedily kept while the nomination can be tagged with {{db-ban}} and speedily deleted as a banned contribution. However, if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)." In fact, they actually go against non-admins speedy keeping anything: "Although closing AfD discussions that end with an outcome of "keep" can be done by non-admins, it is recommended that only administrators close discussions as speedy-keeps. Normal users are encouraged to recommend a "speedy keep" instead." There's nothing wrong with going through this debate if non-banned, non-sockpuppet editors wish to go through the process. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it does mean that, and please don't mock me. I disagree and, as I said, will close these nominations. Wikidemo (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't understand why you feel that simply because a sockpuppet may be involved, it has to bring the rest of Wikipedia to a grinding halt. Effectively, that means they have won, as they have gamed the system into doing nothing and having debates about freezing everything they've been involved in, as has been the case here. I'm even prevented from doing it myself simply because he did it; this is a very, very, very bad way to go about things, as it bogs down Wikipedia's proceedings simply because "a sock nominated it for deletion earlier, thus the normal process of Wikipedia is ruined for everyone else." Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look into what is actually happening instead of getting on a soap box here with the straw man arguments. Closing these bad faith AfD nominations is clearly the right thing to do, and overwhelmingly in the interest of avoiding disruption. Last time this sockpuppet appeared he / she nominated 20 or more articles for deletion. Some were speedily closed, others were allowed to run their course which, because of the sockpuppet involvement, became messy, contentious, and time consuming. As far as I know they were all kept in the end. The puppeteer has come back time and again to do the same thing. This time it's 22 new nominations in two days after being warned to stop. One of the AfDs I closed is his/her fifth nomination of the same article in six weeks. There's no productive work on the encyclopedia that's furthered by this. The most efficient thing to do here is summarily close the nominations without prejudice to renomination by a legitimate editor sometime in the future. Wikidemo (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So you have no problem with the article being relisted, and the only thing that matters is this person who put the four tildes at the end, rather than the content of the AfD itself? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the article being relisted after we deal with the sockpuppet(s). The main thing that matters here is that we deal effectively with a disruptive troll who has cost experienced editors and administrators many dozens of hours of time and rancor, including three or four AN/I cases, several AN and BLP cases, two RfCs, two checkusers, who knows what other administrative remedies, and the attention of arbitration committee members. That's a lot more important than reviewing a nearly two-year-old article about a possibly non-notable professor this week instead of next week simply because the troll wants us to do it this week. Wikidemo (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reopen the AfD or relist, whichever works faster (sounds like the relist will). WP:SK says that it doesn't apply to XfDs where other !votes have been cast, even ones by banned users and vandals. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)