Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2012/January

User:MrsamaliOfficial
Promotional account. And a terribly done one at that. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I deleted it. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/65.120.80.8
Due to the nature of the vandalism this user is constantly performing, he should have a long block. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Apart from the word 'butt', what else did this user do? I can only see 2 recent edits but I've blocked the user for a day (I generally don't give blocks of longer than 3 days to IPs)--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 20:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't we agree that a user that is constantly adding nonsense (including offensive words) and reverting itself is a vandal even if the content does not remain visible. This would simplify the analysis and implications.
 * I will be a bit obtuse so not to give ideas to others, but notice the pattern of the changes, and the possibilities that with habituation to self correction the use of diff (that only shows 2 edits) limits a direct comparison to what was altered, this can be used to layer nonsensical edits, if the activity is successfully obfuscated. I have found that these types of one word here and there alterations are the most problematic and successful because they require an effort to contextualize in the full meaning of phrases (even more if in used in more technical content). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I basically meant that I couldn't see what exactly he'd done but that it didn't matter because it was you who posted the request on this page. Even if there was constant vandalism I wouldn't block an IP for longer than a few days although I'm sure plenty of other administrators would do otherwise.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 22:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It will be a good exercise to see if your short block resolves the issue then... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Typically most long IP blocks are against open proxies and Checkuser investigations against a pattern of abuse. They often include blocking logged in users editing from those IPs. Personally I'll block for 1 - 6 months if there is a persistent set of abuse extended over a period. For example, if I find 20+ edits spread over 2 months with every one vandalism I'll use a long block. As an aside I often check other projects to see if there is a block there too as it provides useful evidence of a trend QU TalkQu 08:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

User: Return_of_Tyrone_Jones
User:Return_of_Tyrone_Jones is a Spammer, see here: Special:Contributions/Return_of_Tyrone_Jones RealSebix (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, and sorry you had to bear the brunt of his actions this time. That account is now blocked. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Discussion
There is an ongoing discussion regarding Corposcindosis and a claim by an editor, User:Ace Baker, that he is the copyright holder. The review has presented some difficulties as this editor also contributed to the book and hence licensed their contributions when they hit "save page". In looking into the sequence of events I believe the following is a reasonable summary:


 * 1) Starting on 7 June 2008 User:StevenLupoGrossi copied material onto Wikibooks from a copyright source.
 * 2) An administrator tagged this material as a possible copyright violation and warned StevenLupoGrossi. The warning is still extant on the user talk page.
 * 3) An IP editor removed the tag without any edit summary. This removal was not questioned by other community members at the time.
 * 4) After about two weeks StevenLupoGrossi disappeared from Wikibooks until October 2008 when he made a small number of further contributions and has been inactive since.
 * 5) In January 2012, User:Ace Baker claiming to be Alexander Baker the copyright holder requested the deletion of the book. He made a number of minor edits to the book during this period. Since then he has made more requests to delete the book.

There appears, based solely on user account names, to be some history between StevenLupoGrossi and Ace Baker. This forum for example, has a contributor using the name Steven Lupo Grossi writing in March 2007 that "...I have only recently learned that Ace Baker is one and the same with Alex Baker..." and "...Again, I have only just confirmed that Ace is the same guy as Alex." This makes it seem like "Ace" and "Steven" are different people, but this thread contains a number of posts suggesting they are in fact sockpuppets. None of this is strictly relevant but if the accounts User:StevenLupoGrossi and User:Ace Baker are the same person on Wikibooks, then the material in the disputed book has all been contributed by the same real person. It follows then that if "Ace Baker" really is "Alexander Baker", the copyright holder, then all the material is licensed under the Terms of Use and therefore free to remain here.

From this I see three possible outcomes:


 * 1) We ignore the edit history and possible sock puppets as well as Ace Baker's claim of ownership and just proceed to delete based on probable copyright violation from 2008.
 * 2) We request confirmation that StevenLupoGrossi and Ace Baker are one and the same, then delete based on the custom and practice of respecting an author's request to delete material they solely contributed.
 * 3) We conduct a sockpuppet review and if the two accounts are socks we refuse to delete as the material has been released under the Terms of Use. I doubt we'll find any evidence after four years that provides a link between the two accounts even if they are linked.

Personally I'd recommend following course (1) but I'd like some other opinions please QU TalkQu 12:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You will also notice that User:Ace Baker made edits some 2 years ago as well which is strange if he is only now claiming a copyright violation - why did he edit the book 2 years ago if that were the case? The user is not willing to explain his claims and said he doesn't want to discuss anything.  And over the past 12 hours the user has begun vandalising the book in an attempt to turn it into nonsense.  This user should be blocked if such unconstructive edits continued and his request for deletion of the book should be ignored because he doesn't have a leg to stand on especially when being disruptive.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 12:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Did not notice this thread. I agree with QuiteUnusual because of 3 but that we should not follow 1 (since no one objected to the removal of the copyvio at that time), but that the new copyvio process now occurring should be completed. I also make a note that "the custom and practice of respecting an author's request to delete material" is only valid for content that is meaningless to the community (and even to the common public), if the administrator feels himself unable to determine the value of the content or find an alternative repository (in case it is useful content but not for Wikibooks) a RfD should be in initiated.  --Panic (discuss • contribs) 12:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I admit that I am all of those people. I am Alexander Collin "Ace" Baker. "Steven Lupo Grossi" is an acronym for "Stop Evil Surgeons". Deleting my important work is the last thing I would ever want to do. Exactly the opposite. I spent years researching and writing this book. Deleting it is destroying me, tearing me up inside. But they will kill me if I don't delete it.


 * In case you were not aware, Corposcindosis contains irrefutable proof that the practice of thoracic sympathectomy is a crime against humanity. It is involuntary human medical experimentation. I have twice been flown to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke for extensive testing, including brain scans. Many other ETS surgery patients have as well. I have a whole new chapter "Effects on the Brain".


 * I took unauthorized video of my brain scanning. I wrote this book. I litigated court cases, and they made my court case disappear from the court records. See this before I delete it again.


 * I KNOW TOO MUCH. Can you please understand? They now have been to my house. They have scared my wife. This book must disappear. Please, please, I beg you. Please make this book disappear. They are going to kill me. I don't want to die. I have children. Ace Baker (discuss • contribs) 12:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should delete it as original research based on the comments above? QU TalkQu 13:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * An OR deletion would require an RFD. Based on the comments above, I'm inclined to view all of Ace Baker's claims with caution (never assume :-).  From what I understand of this, the copyvio process will dispose of it soon enough unless credible evidence is provided that the copyright holder gave permission &mdash; and the person who claims to be the copyright holder would not have any obvious motive to provide such evidence because they claim to want the book to be deleted.  If they really want it deleted, the best way to make that happen is (I think...) to not prove they hold the copyright.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree and I wasn't proposing deleting for OR without an RFD. It also crossed my mind that if StevenLussoGrossi is NOT Alexander Baker then this could be an attempt by whoever operates the SLG account to get the work deleted by pretending to be Alexander Baker... I'm leaning towards deleting as an apparent copyvio (on the grounds on no evidence of permission) QU TalkQu 15:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * QU asked for my thoughts. Edits by StevenLupoGrossi are too old to confirm anything with CheckUser.  No apparent association between Ace Baker and any other currently active accounts.  Looking at the edit history of http://www.editthis.info/corposcindosis/Main_Page and the subpages listed in the contents at the left-hand side, the content there predates the content at Wikibooks and is not clearly released under a free license.  Looking there, the admin user is responsible for much of the content and the email address for the admin includes Steven Lupo Grossi's name.  We see the author's email below that in the sidebar as specifying Ace Baker's name.  So the identities and edits are conflated there as well.  Don't know what to make of the last sentence above by Ace Baker.  But overall there are grounds for deletion under copyright infringement.  In summary, I'm in favor of #1 as being the straightforward option, #2 could be done through OTRS (info@undefinedwikibooks.org in this case) if this needed to be expedited, and #3 cannot be confirmed due to the timeline of events. – Adrignola discuss 16:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the copyright claim is coming up now because of the decision at Wikipedia to delete the Ace Baker article and block Ace Baker. I think since the identity is fuzzy, the Wikibooks community should be invited to discuss what it wants to do at RFD. --dark lama  21:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest an indefinite block as has occurred over on Wikipedia. Just block him and be done with - no more discussion about deleting the article or trying to discuss things with a person who isn't willing to discuss.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 21:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as OR. If we need an RFD, then start an RFD. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * RFD created here QU TalkQu 22:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. What is the delay? Ace Baker (discuss • contribs) 02:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)