A case of speedy deletion
editMy talk page (19:53, 13 January 2018): Speedy deletion nomination of Principles for Digital Development
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Principles for Digital Development requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://digitalprinciples.org/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi there,
could you please put the latest version of Principles for Digital Development into my user space (ideally restore the page, as I would prefer to not loose the history; together with the talk page, so we can continue discussion)? I had moved the page from my user space earlier today, but formal permission was queried (see below). I then tried to move the page back into user space, and because of this the (unintended) cross link the page was then deleted. Sorry for not removing the cross link.
We are discussing copyright of the page, and I am just getting formal permission from DIAL for the use of their CC BY-SA 4.0 content to be used under CC BY-SA 3.0 on Wikipedia. As we had informal permission for posting on Wikipedia through a forum post already, and because the text on wikipedia was already monitored by the forum team, this will not be a problem. (After all, the Principles are about open); hence I don't want to lose what I have done so far.
Thanks, Bjohas (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
(Also see, User_talk:Diannaa, Bjohas (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC))
Hi again. I believe your reasons for deletion was the redirect, rather than copyright. However, if the pre-existing speedy deletion note contributed, and having read up on the policies, I'd like to argue my case as follows.
Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G12._Unambiguous_copyright_infringement states:
This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
On the basis of this ("a dubious assertion of permission", i.e. permission with the Digital Principles forum, rather than formally by letter to WMF; also "free-content edits overlie the infringement" for the additional section created), I'd like to argue for restoring the page to article space, removing the speedy deletion nomination, while taking the above actions (as in (a)/(b) on User_talk:Diannaa, i.e. re-editing the page, and {{OTRS pending}} as a reasonable way forward). What do you think? Bjohas (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Now resolved! Bjohas (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please read this. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the reply, that's very much appreciated. In case I interpreted the link correctly, a clarification: I am not affiliated with the organisation looking after the Principles in any way. So yes, while I drew on their website, I didn't copy my website, or a website I am affiliated with to Wikipedia. I also think that the Principles for Digital Development should have an entry on Wikipedia, as they are an important set of operational principles, including many organisations that are philosophically aligned with openness, sharing, and valuing the work of volunteers, in the same way as Wikipedia does. Thanks again for your response, and for sending a copy of the page. Bjohas (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Diannaa, thanks for spotting the copyright issue on Principles for Digital Development (CC BY-SA 3.0 on wikipedia vs. CC BY-SA 4.0 on the Principles site). I tried to move the page back into my user space. This left a redirect behind from article space to user space (which I failed to spot) and the page was promptly deleted by User:RHaworth. I have contacted User:RHaworth about restoring the page to my user space, but so far this hasn't happened. To me it looks like that your reason (copyright) and User:RHaworth's reason (redirect) were different, and that the article could be improved by editing, particularly given that I had added independent work to the article, that was free of copyright restrictions ("If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.", Wikipedia:Deletion_policy).
Regarding the copyright issue: I have informal endorsement/permission for posting to Wikipedia already, via a public forum post on the Principles site.
- The link is https://forum.digitalprinciples.org/t/pdds-on-wikipedia/1046
- The endorsing response is from Dustin Andres, https://www.linkedin.com/in/dustinandres/, who works for DIAL, who are the product owners of the Principles.
- The Principles (and previous website) predate CC 4.0 (afaik), so there must be a version in their archive that 3.0. I would consider it very unlikely that it would note be possible to get formal 3.0 licensing. I'll check the Internet Archive, to see whether I can find a 3.0 version.
In any case, I have followed this up with a more formal request to get permission using the Wikipedia process. I would suggest that (a) I re-edit the page, and (b) place {{OTRS pending}} onto the page, while the permissions are being being processed?
What do you think? Bjohas (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
(Also see, User talk:RHaworth.)
C.f. also Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G12._Unambiguous_copyright_infringement
This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.
On the basis of this ("a dubious assertion of permission", i.e. permission with the Digital Principles forum, rather than formally by email to WMF; also "free-content edits overlie the infringement" for the additional section created), I'd like to make the case for restoring the page the article space, and removing the speedy deletion nomination, while taking the above actions (as in (a)/(b) above, with {{OTRS pending}} as a reasonable way forward). What do you think? Bjohas (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry but we can't host copyright material or incompatibly licensed material anywhere on this wiki, including in userspace or drafts. I can send you a copy of the deleted material via email if you like. The copyright holder needs to send an email releasing the material under a compatible license to the OTRS team. The instructions are at WP:donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample email at WP:consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks - yes please send me a copy of the page, that would be much appreciated. Would you agree that:
- it's ok for me to re-create the page asap, as long as I do not use any of the infringing material?
- As soon as the consent email is sent to OTRS, I will then re-include the materials, and attach the PTRS pending template?
- OK? Bjohas (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Email sent. It's okay to re-create the page as long as it doesn't contain any copyright violations and does not contain any incompatibly licensed material. Don't create it as a user page like you did at User:Principles for Digital Development. That's wrong. Drafts are located in draft space. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation for more information about drafts and about getting started in Wikipedia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- OK? Bjohas (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion - availability of deleter for comment?
editHello all. I recently moved a newly created page from user space to articles, and it was flagged for speedy deletion. I responded to this quickly, but (as far as I can tell from the logs) the page was then quickly deleted by another admin as I tried to take the page out of the article space. I wrote a message on the users talk pages, but so far haven't heard back (admitted just under 24 hours). However, it did make me think that perhaps some a guideline could be added somewhere, that where pages are speedily deleted without discussion, the deleting admin should be available for comment for a reasonable time of the deletion, e.g. via their talk page?
In my case, I think there's a good case to be made that the speedy deletion nomination and actual deletion were perhaps applied hastily (see User_talk:RHaworth, User talk:Diannaa), and I now have to wait for a response. I am sure that the actions by the admins were in good faith and this is ABSOLUTELY NOT A COMPLAINT to those admins. I'd just like to put forward the contributors perspective: For myself, as contributor to Wikipedia (with a fair understanding of Creative Commons and promoting open equitable processes), it feels frustrating that the page has been pulled without a copy, and my agency in improving the page, or at least discussing the page in proximity to the nomination/deletion, has been removed.
This post IS NOT about arguing whether the page should have been deleted or not, but whether there a community guideline somewhere might be useful that says: "If you speedy delete a page, then (if at all possible) please be available for comment to discuss the issue with the page editors. If you are speedily deleting a new page or a recently edited page, please take into account the reasons for the deletion and opportunities for amendment, and consider forwarding the page content to the last editor of the page."
What do others think? Bjohas (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Per our admin accountabiity policy, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." I typically interpret this as giving an administrator 24 hours after their first edit that postdates your query on their talk page to respond substantively, but that part is just my opinion. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Bjohas. Assuming your query is only about wanting to know about the community guideline, I'll keep this to the point. What Tazer says is correct. However, does it apply in this case? Not at all. Not that administrators need to be available every waking second, but you posted on Dianaa's page at 11.00 and 11:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC) and Dianaa responded at 12:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC). In all probability, you missed it. And RHaworth hasn't edited Wikipedia since 13 January. Additionally, you've been instructed by Dianna on why we're extremely strict about copyright violations – which is what you posted. So my suggestion would be, be careful about such copyright violations in the future. And try to give editors reasonable time to respond (1-2 days is quite reasonable). Thanks, Lourdes 16:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's very helpful thanks. (Btw. have now responded to Dianaa's answer, which I hadn't seen. Dianna hadn't actually deleted the page, but RHaworth.)
- In any case, my suggestion "If you speedy delete a page, then (if at all possible) please be available for comment to discuss the issue with the page editors." is taken care of. by existing guidelines as Tazerdadog points out.
- What about the recommendation: "If you are speedily deleting a new page or a recently edited page, please take into account the reasons for the deletion and opportunities for amendment, and consider forwarding the page content to the last editor of the page." - I had added a section to the page that was my own, creating links to other articles, free of copyright infringement. Sure, that wouldn't have left a feasible article, but if I'd been sent what I had done, then I could have built on this by removing the copyrighted elements. What do you think? Bjohas (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Admins are under no obligation to send problematic material to an editor before they delete a speedy delete a page. If a user wants an old copy of a page, all they have to do is ask the deleting admin. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- I guess my proposal is to consider this as an additional guide (not before deletion, but after deletion). In my case, I had set time aside to work on the page, but after deletion the admin wasn't available (though I messaged minutes after the deletion). So I'd like to put this forward as an additional consideration, but it's jsut an idea Bjohas (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Admins are under no obligation to send problematic material to an editor before they delete a speedy delete a page. If a user wants an old copy of a page, all they have to do is ask the deleting admin. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Here's a second idea. How about recommending posting to the last editors talk page, at least saying that the page was deleted? This happened with the speedy deletion notice, but not with he actual page deletion. I think that would be helpful too. Bjohas (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's a reasonably nice suggestion to inform the creator of the page (not the last editor) that their page has been deleted (something akin to, for example, how article authors are informed before a GA review starts and then again once the review ends). I say nice, because I understand the perspective that you have. But I don't think there will be consensus to include this, even as a suggestion. I myself would consider it an additional unnecessary step to put into the deletion process, specially when the author of the article has already been informed of a pending deletion in advance. Lourdes 14:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)