User talk:JzG/Archive 161

This is an archive of past discussions about User:JzG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 155

←

Archive 159

Archive 160

Archive 161

Archive 162

Archive 163

→

Archive 165

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

---

This IP is doing a lot of vandalism despite 4 warnings and a report to AIV, your an active admin so I thought I'd let you know. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Don't know if you're seeing this. I noticed you'd weighed-in recently on related copyright issues. Am I right to be concerned here or am I barking up the wrong tree? I've a concern that Wikipedia is being put in the front line of the copyright wars which are aflame right now. Alexbrn (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I notice you are removing many links to Zenodo. I don't use it, or link to it, but many pages in my watch list seem to come up in your edits. As far as I can tell, it is supposed to be a good site. Is there reason to believe it isn't? Many journals now allow author's to put their papers online, and also allow them freely available after some time period. I don't know specifically about any, though. The ones I see being removed are to papers many years old. If you have a quick way to undo these removals, then I won't worry so much about it. As I understand it, the block is temporary until it is figured out. Gah4 (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I have checked a lot of them and virtually all fall into one of two categories: papers that are copyright by a major publisher, to which Zenodo has no rights and which are therefore copyright violations, and pre-publication uploads by academics, whihc are misleading in that the final citation is to the published version. It seems to be functioning as a sort of under the radar Sci-Hub. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't actually know about Zenodo, but many journals now allow authors to post the final version for non-commercial use. The APS^[1] though still requires copyright transfer for future uses. Elsevier^[2] has their own policy. I don't know how to tell which were uploaded by the author, and which by someone else, which might matter. Both seem to make a distinction for non-commercial use. It sounds to me that Zenodo is non-commercial, but I don't actually know that. Can you unde these if they are found to be legal? (None of them were posted by me, but many seem to be in my watch list.). Gah4 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not do "no commercial use". Also derivative works are not the original papers. Zenodo does not verify that the uploader has rights to release. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Gah4, WP:COPYVIOEL forbids linking directly to any website which hosts copyrighted works without permission. A good example is our article about the Trump–Russia dossier. It doesn't link to the original dossier at documentcloud.org because it hosts many copyrighted documents without permission. The same rule applies to Zenodo. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Then we should block specific Zenodo links, but not the entire site. This decision is equivalent to blocking all of Google and YouTube for containing copyrighted works. Blocking Zenodo makes it look like we have a vendetta against the entire platform which simply hosts information. This is a scientific site, not a spam site. We are not the Firewall of China blocking an entire site because only a small fraction of the content is considered to be unfit. — Stevey7788 (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

How many copyrighted documents without permission does a site host to get on this list? How many does Zenodo host? Who counted them? As well as I know it, many journals allow papers to be posted by authors. Has it been checked which journals those are and who uploaded the papers? I do understand about SciHub, but it looks to me that Zenodo isn't one. But much of what I know about it is from reading Zemodo which, hopefully, is correct. Gah4 (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate, Zenodo does not appear to be evil or deliberately subversive, but there are large numbers of papers - 100% of the first sample of 50 I checked - where either the document is a submitted MS not the final copy (and that does not make copyright clean, as the rights are to the work, not just the final published version) or it's identified as copyright by a major publisher with no evidence of release. Wikipedia can't touch this kind of link, per Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. We are bound by some horribly illiberal laws here, and none of us like it. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Zenodo is absolutely crucial for science, because it contains important primary data that peer-reviewed sources often do not contain. Please at least move the Zenodo links to Further reading section, etc., but not entirely delete them. Millions of unpublished papers on Academia.edu, which could sometimes even less reliable than Zenodo stuff, are cited on Wikipedia. — Stevey7788 (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

We try to minimize primary sources, especially crude data that has not been peer reviewed as it invites original research. That material also had no place in Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are Zenodo links blocked on Wikipedia when Academia.edu links are allowed? This is an extremely valuable resource that should not be completely blocked. Rather, we should blocked specific Zenodo links that are known to be copyrighted, but not the entire website. This is the equivalent of blocking all of YouTube since some (but not all) videos are copyrighted. — Stevey7788 (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

See above. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Stevey778, Zenodo came to the community's attention, because it is risky and has been abused here in WP. Here is the story -- links to it are offered by WP:OABOT. OABOT is a great tool (it suggests OA links that users can add to citations in WP articles), but people have been abusing OABOT by a) making very long runs with OABOT and b) doing those runs very fast, and not actually checking to see that the suggested link is to a validly-uploaded paper (such that linking to it, would not violate WP:COPYLINK and WP:ELNEVER). A lot of the papers that I and others have checked that have been added via OABOT and are at Zenodo, are the final published form of papers, which have been, more often than not, a copyright violation. Zenodo appears to have more of a problem with this than other repositories. That is why this is happening. We might able to change the blacklist status in time, but it is unlikely to change right now. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Gotcha. Looks like this is a problem with OABOT then. But unpublished sources have also had their links removed or blocked, and those are clearly not even copyrighted. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, as unpublished sources don't meet WP:RS so shouldn't be here anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 27, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 21:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hzh (talk • contribs)

I am hereby appealing the topic ban you imposed here and am formally asking for terms for its lifting or that it be lifted.

No conditions have been placed by you for lifting the ban, but I can identify that in that time I have worked in similar areas to great effect: E.g.:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

And on other wikis, where I worked with the content in question without issue:

• [4].

I pledge to continue to try to tone down my rhetoric.

Thank you for your consideration:

jps (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Guy, these are best selling books. Neither of us may like them, but in an encyclopaeia it is important that we acknowledge that a best selling author has, in fact, written books. Deleting the list of books - even if they are about fad diets - is akin to vandalism, and is not what we should be doing in an encyclopaeia. It isn't overly promotional to say what an author has written. - Bilby (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

They are best selling frauds. We point this out in the article. He's a scam artist. Promoting his scam does not make us a better encyclopaedia. Why do you bat so hard for charlatans? Guy (Help!) 21:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

They're very successful fad diets. We don't hide reality just because we don't like it. Any genuine encyclopaedia would at least mention the books published by a best selling author, whether or not we agree with them. - Bilby (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The article makes it absolutely clear that his books promote fraud. En of, really. Guy (Help!) 00:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if my edit summery here[5] was confusing, I had made an edit that left the article saying "Andrew Wakefield visited Minneapolis, teaming up with anti-vaccine groups to raise concerns that vaccines were the cause of autism, including, disgraced former doctor Andrew Wakefield" which obviously doesn't make sense, I never meant that "disgraced former doctor" was a typo, I think disgraced former doctor is a good description of wakefield. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, and I cleaned it up properly I think. No biggie. What's more important is that we now correctly establish that the antivaxers were on the ground pretty much from the outset, rather than coming in at the last minute to simply exploit long-standing concerns in the community. In fact the antivaxers were the driver behind the "concerns" of higher rates of diagnosis and they cynically exploited this community, leading to serious harm. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I criticized you at AN3[6], you are not the subject of the report, but I still think you should know. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there anything I need to know, or that you can share about this journal re: credibility as a RS? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 10:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: It is a minor journal with a very low impact factor, which is high risk for academic POV-pushing by the editorial team and their cronies, but it may be legit for uncontroversial content. Red flags would be people demanding inclusion of their Great New Theory as published here, when it's been rejected by other editors. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Thx - needed that validation - the article in question that was published in the journal was already questionable as it cites en.WP (circular ref.) - dog stuff. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 10:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Ha! Well I think we know what to do with that then :-) Guy (Help!) 10:45, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Your edit summery here[7] incorrectly accuses me of adding an antivax trope and implies that I have been doing this on other articles as well. I did not originally add the content in question, but restored it after an IP removed it. I do a lot of counter-vandalism and in my experience it is very rare for an IP to constructively blank 6 kilobytes, so I reverted but left a message telling the IP to use the talk page first rather than giving the IP a vandalism template. If an experienced user (you) wants to remove the non-specific effects section based on improper sourcing I have no objection. I accept constructive criticism and if you have a problem with my editing you can raise the issue on my talk page where I can defend my edits or admit my error, but please don't go casting aspersions in your edit summaries. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

You may well be blissfully unaware, but the "vaccines cause increased mortality" meme is indeed an antivax trope. Per WP:MEDRS we have to handle it with extreme care because all the publications are basically from a single group, and there are many potential sources of confounding. As it turns out all-cause mortality is lower in the vaccinated community, so that also demands especial care. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I am fully aware of antivaxers making bogus claims that vaccines are dangerous. At DPT vaccine, I saw an IP blank a section of sourced material without saying what was wrong with the sources, so I reverted. I had not looked at the sources in detail yet, but I believe you if you say there were problems. I am not advocating for the content you removed to be restored. My concern was only that your edit summery implies that I have been pushing an antivax POV on multiple articles, assuming bad faith not only of the edit you reverted, but implying a pattern. To be clear, I do not object to the content removal in any way, I just don't want you to cast aspersions in your edit summaries in the future. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not casting aspersions, I consider you to be naive in these matters, given your history in vaccine related articles. I am exhorting you to check more carefully, is all. Guy (Help!) 10:03, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for clarifying that you didn't mean to cast aspersions. I'm curious what about my editing history you consider naive, if you are referring to stuff from January or before I didn't understand UNDUE then, if you'r referring to something more recent I don't know what. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

You earned a lot of black marks before you learned UNDUE, and I still find that some of your edits are naively accepting of antivax bullshit in particular. This is not your fault: they work tirelessly to ensure that their bullshit looks sciencey, it's only sad bastards like me who follow the science nerds who watch and critique it that would necessarily know. Give Skeptical Raptor a follow on your social media of choice, that will help. Also Dorit Reiss and of course David Gorski. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I have requested a review of my topic ban at WP:AE. jps (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Please remember to comment on content, not contributors, accusing someone in a good-faith content dispute of having a "commitment to protect the reputations of charlatans" is not productive and only makes it harder to achieve consensus without the content discussion devolving into an ANI case. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop believing antivax bullshit and I'll stop commenting on it. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If you looked at the diff I linked you would see that I am referring to a borderline PA/unnecessary accusation you made against Bilby, not anything you said to me. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Bilby goes to bat for every charlatan. No idea why. Now go away or I will replace you with a very small shell script. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For consistent defense against the imaginative memes of people burdened by a Hollywood conspiracy theory understanding of science. bd2412 T 23:17, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello JzG. A user in the AN thread, User:Softlavender, is now saying they would like to see a proper unblock request on the user's talk page before going further. Somehow the thread has convinced itself there is a spamming issue which must absolutely be dealt with, but that has clouded the original POV-pushing, which I think must be the reason why you lifted their talk page access in the first place. So I don't know what to advise. But this AN thread (which you started!) risks lingering forever unless someone decides what to do. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain why the page for the Institute of Ideas was deleted? It was an active and influential organisation, and Claire Fox has since created the Academy of Ideas, which is essentially the same thing. Without the wiki page, people are unlikely to be able to trace the history of Claire Fox, or the activities of the organisations that she has operated. Given that she makes regular TV and radio appearances, especially on the BBC, it would seem rather important that there is a page about IoI.Vectronn (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The article was deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Ideas, a redirect was created two years later, I deleted the redirect due to a complaint but I can't remember the details. Guy (Help!) 09:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)