Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 18

18 February 2019

User:Red_marquis/sandbox/Dead_to_the_World_Tour_sandbox

User:Red_marquis/sandbox/Dead_to_the_World_Tour_sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Nick deleted page despite consensus in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Red marquis/sandbox/Dead to the World Tour sandbox. Page is my sandbox that I am using to work on an article. User:RhinosF1 said I violated copyvio. Red marquis (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As Advised at MfD, you can't copy text exactly in to Wikipedia. That makes it a copyvio. Did you get the offline editor working? RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 07:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I did. I'm still challenging the decision, which strikes me as unilaterally done and, as User:Alfie pointed out, what I did was nowhere near as egregiously harmful as made out to be. -Red marquis (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I had a long look at the page to see if there was any alternative to deletion and couldn't see any alternative, but I've asked a couple of my fellow administrators for a second opinion, to see if there's any way we can remove the offending material and restore your sandbox. I think such a possibility is remote, so don't get your hopes up, but we will do what we can do. As I said elsewhere, we take no pleasure in deleting material being used to write high quality encyclopedic content, particularly for technical reasons such as copyright issues. Nick (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Nick, I have to agree, deleting as a copyvio is not something we want to see. Especially when it's obvious you put hard work into it. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 10:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse. Copyright violations are copyright violations, and can be deleted unilaterally and whether egregious or not. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• I took a look at the deleted User:Red marquis/sandbox/Dead to the World Tour page and compared that to https://www.mansonwiki.com/wiki/Dead_to_the_World_(tour). There's no doubt that it's a copy. Whole paragraphs are virtually word-for-word identical, and looking at the history logs, their page predates ours. The next question is whether that material is copyrighted. I found their copyright statement. I'm not an expert on copyright law and licenses, but it looks to me like it's compatable with ours, so I'm thinking WP:G12 may not apply. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Manson wiki was not one of the 8 URLs I requested a copyright review for violations of due to their copyright policy and the fact users ponited out they may have copied from wikipedia instead of the other way round. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't followed the full history. Could you post that list of 8 URLs here. I'd be happy to look at those too. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As pointed out at the MfD, Earwig's copyvio tool indicated an issue with a single Desert News source, which could have been easily removed. had already been removed by Oshwah. The other 7 sources listed were in the 30% range (copyvio unlikely). Further examination revealed those 7 sources to have been flagged primarily as a result of brief direct quotations, which isn't copyvio according to policy. The fact that the sandbox was deleted before the copyvio team even had a chance to investigate it and against consensus is a massive red flag for me, especially when the legitimacy of the copyvio claim regarding those 7 other sources had already been questioned. Homqeostasis07 (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2019_February_12 for the list all were in Earwig's Red Range as 'Violation Likely' not in the 30% range as claimed above. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I checked during the MfD, and the Desert News source was the only one in the red range. Everything else was triggered by either random sentence fragments, album, song and other associated titles, or bits of direct quotes, none of which could be claimed as copyvio. A review by the copyvio team would've confirmed this. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I will allow the admin team to review this. Nick obviously believed this but I'll let other admins decide. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse per Nick’s explanation on his talk. There was simply too much to sort through to make revdel and individual excision feasible, making wholesale deletion the only option. Whether it’s G12 or IAR “This is the only way to get an outcome clearly needed under policy”, the end result was necessary, and is not subject to consensus at XfD. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The one genuine copyvio source had already been excised prior to deletion. Any other alleged instances are disputed. Meaning that the overriding issue here is that the draft was deleted prior to a review by the copyvio team being completed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Endorse per Nick. Blatant G12 violations cannot be overturned at a deletion discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)